My commentary on the recent PDN Article

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I have comments for almost every paragraph of this article, I also want to use this article as an experiment of sorts in terms of SEO, therefore I will only be commenting on a small portion of the article here, but I will reply to my own thread multiple times with different sections of the article, in each reply I will be changing the subject of the post, but rest assured all of my replies will be in regards to the PDN article, and I will also quote the section of the article I am commenting on, so it should be fairly weasy to follow, and I'm hoping to get some extra google entires as well..any whoozle...

Before I dig in here, let it be known, that these are my opinions and thoughts, I am entitled to them, they may make some folks cringe, while others might get their panties in a knot.   They may not all reflect the views of the ELI community as a whole...but perhaps they will. With that being said...onward to my commentary...my inline comments will appear bolded..

I also spoke with the author of this article at length, but I can’t help but notice nothing is mentioned in regards to my Getty letter in which case I have a license...this letter to me is clearly slanted to the stock agencies as well as the photographers, which comes as no surprise...it is a photography site..from here on oput my inline comments will appear in bold text..

This past July 4, Toronto-based stock photo agency Masterfile sent a $57,030 invoice to an unidentified company for the unauthorized Web use of five images. Pay up within ten days, the invoice said, or “Masterfile will be obliged to continue its legal process without further notice to you.”

The recipient handed the letter over to ExtortionLetterInfo (ELI), an advocacy group that is taking a bare-knuckles approach to fighting demands for what it considers unreasonable amounts of money for unauthorized use of images. It is making copyright enforcement more difficult and expensive for stock agencies and the attorneys representing them.

While this statement may appear to be factual, it’s worth mentioning that several key points as to WHY we take a bare-knuckle approach, which have been omitted. Yes we consider the amounts unreasonable in most cases..but there is also the fact that when asked to supply a method to which these amounts are arrived at, the stock agencies always balk, same goes for questioning who owns the copyright, proof of registration, etc..., If I get a bill in the mail and something doesn’t look right, I question it, whether it’s for a nickel or 500.00 dollars.. Try sending Jonathan Klein an invoice or claim for $1000.00 because his company sent you a letter, I bet he would question the validity of the invoice/claim, and rightfully so...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

“A bunch of infringers are talking among each other: There’s a certain level of mob support, so we have to pursue [infringers] pretty hard,” says Masterfile President Steve Pigeon.

I take offense to this jerk off Steve Pigeon calling me an infringer...I am a content creator and fully respect and understand copyright, furthermore I had and still have in my possession a valid license for an image that Getty pursued me for.... making a blanket statement such as this is totally ignorant, unprofessional, and self-serving.
“Certain level of mob support”...well that’s certainly something new.... pot meet kettle.. Steve Pigeon himself is the one guilty of trying to extort crazy amounts of money from small businesses, by threatening lawsuits, yet we here at ELI are the “mob”... douchebaggery at its’ finest..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

ELI founder Matthew Chan calls the demand letters from Masterfile, Getty Images, Corbis Images and others “extortionistic.” Most are directed at small-business owners who use images on their websites without realizing they are infringing, Chan insists. “The push-back wouldn’t be so hard if the numbers [agencies are] asking for weren’t so high,” he says. He also says agencies use legal scare tactics that drive infringers to his website for information about how to fight back. “Piss enough people off, and there’s going to be a boomerang effect.”

It has devolved into a battle of wills, with rhetoric flying from both sides. One person on ELI’s list of so-called “copyright extortionists” because of his enforcement efforts says ELI is anti-copyright, and that the organization uses intimidation to discourage copyright owners from pursuing infringers. (He asked not to be named, saying, “I don’t want to be a lightning rod for unrestrained attacks from the people and companies who want all content to be free.”)

Anti-copyright my ass, I’d like to know which one of the spineless trolls spewed this line of garbage, I’d be the first one to throw his lousy ass under the bus. (Timothy B. McCormack comes to mind here, since it’s well known he has no balls.) I have not come across one person on ELI who is anti-copyright. I also wouldn't call it “intimidation”, we just like to bring the fight from a different angle, it is clearly the copyright trolls who are using intimidation, by threatening lawsuits and quoting law that is largely irrelevant.....This douchebag should grow some balls and visit ELI, I’m curious as to where he came up with the idea “we want all content to be free” that’s just absurd.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty says sites such as ELI’s “contain a wealth of misinformation” directed at infringers, and the agency has invested resources in photo licensing education efforts. “We think it’s important that image users have access to accurate information,” an agency spokesperson says.

My eye is beginning to twitch, whom at Getty said this?? Being that most of the morons that work for Getty Images are just collection clerks, I can’t help but think that it was probably Lisa Wilmer as she seems to head up the legal department...”misinformation”??? really where?? can we see some examples please, we pride ourselves on being factual and accurate, while on the other hand Getty Images never proves their cases, in court or out of court..Contrary to what Getty states, they rarely sue and they certainly don’t have a good track record when they have..Need I mention Advernet? or maybe Chaga international, that Steve Pigeon is still licking his wounds over?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Image infringement is impossible to quantify. Pigeon says the problem is diminishing for Masterfile, partly because the agency has a reputation for pursuing infringers—it is singled out by ELI as one of the most aggressive enforcers, along with Getty—and partly because there are so many images now available online, that the chances of stealing a Masterfile image are diminished.

There he goes again (Steve Pigeon), with the blanket statement that infringers are “stealing”.....Masterfile also has a reputation of taking an ass beating in court...but again this seems to be omitted...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

But infringement is on the rise overall because of digital technology. The U.S. Copyright Office is studying the possibility of establishing a small claims court for copyright infringement, to keep the growing number of claims from clogging federal courts. A consortium of service providers is also weighing a Copyright Alert system to pressure repeat infringers to change their behavior, with penalties including blocked service.

Growing number of claims??? yeah ok...Masterfile, Getty Images, and the other stock agencies ( all with deep pockets and plenty of money to lobby with) would love to have a small claims division, this would allow them to file suits or complaints and not have to pay the 350.00 filing fee, which I believe is one reason they rarely file, it’s not economical for them to spend 350.00 knowing they might be able to collect 200.00 in most cases...but once again I have to digress...talk about misinformation.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

There’s enough copyright infringement that some see enforcement as a profit opportunity. Copyright Services International (CSI) of Walnut, California, and Copyright Defense League (CDL) of New York are two companies offering “recovery” services to photographers and stock agencies, chasing down infringers to force them with the threat of federal lawsuits to pay settlements out of court.

Copyright Services International is our very own Glen Carner, who has apparently moved his office to Walnut California from Hawaii, and we’ve been saying all along that what they do is not about copyright enforcement, but that it is about turning a profit....the sleazy way... Being that Glen is a business man you’d think he would be smart enough to register his business with the city of Walnut CA...or risk being fined on a daily basis..gee I’d hate to see someone notify The City Walnut about this, lest they make a little extra on Glen Carner...I will say that the latest letter we have seen from Copyright Services International, was much more civil, did not threaten litigation and was demanding a much more reasonable dollar amount..Glen Carner gets a bit of credit from me for a step in the right direction, ne can only hope this wasn’t a fluke..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

CSI, a member of several photo trade organizations, was not immediately available for an interview. CDL founder Randy Taylor, who has provided distribution services to stock agencies through previous companies, declined to talk about CDL’s operations and clients. But in early September he distributed a letter to recruit lawyers to go after infringers, and two days later, it appeared on ELI’s website. The letter says that CDL is seeking copyright attorneys who can handle “dozens, if not hundreds of infringement cases” on behalf of CDL clients. 

Hahahaha, Glen Carner was not available for comment?? seems he just did an entire interview, the week before this was published..more on that later.. Yup Randy Taylor was involved in previous companies, they are well documented on ELI.. I wonder how many newbie and desperate attorney’s have joined his little camp after his recruitment email?

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/copyright-defense-league-recruiting-extortionist-lawyers/

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

CDL says it will provide “bulletproof” cases—i.e., cases where the infringers have used the images on commercial websites, and have no fair use defenses—to lawyers willing to pursue them. The lawyers must pursue the infringers at their own expense, in exchange for 33 percent of whatever they manage to collect.

Sorry Asshat Randy Taylor, but there is no such thing as a “bullet-proof” case, pass the pipe over here, I’d love to have a hit of whatever you’re smoking..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty, Corbis and Masterfile all pursue infringers with the help of outside attorneys. But other stock agencies—and some individual photographers—also hire attorneys who specialize in chasing infringers. Demand letters—many of which show up on ELI’s website—include invoices for fees exceeding $10,000 in some cases, although from $1,000 to $5,000 is more typical. Most of the letters have a threatening tone.

Simply put the fear / stress factor raises drastically when a person receives a letter from an attorney, therefore prompting naive uneducated letter recipients to either engage in negotiations or simply pay. This is simply a part of the ”business plan” to extort monies from unsuspecting victims, many of whom are innocent infringers at best.. To prove my point just look at how many suits Getty Images outside Attorney Timothy B. McCormack has filed...Exactly ZERO., Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack is acting as nothing more than a collection clerk and pawn to Getty Images.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Chan labels the work of the enforcers as “copyright trolling,” and says it goes beyond loss recovery. “This is a revenue center to help offset the glut of digital photography” that has caused stock photo prices to collapse, he asserts. He accuses agencies of intimidating small-business owners into paying far more than the images are worth or more than a court would award if copyright holders won judgments.

Chan encourages accused infringers to find out if the images in question are registered, and push back especially hard if they aren’t. That’s because owners of those images can’t recover statutory damages if they sue, making court claims more expensive than they’re worth.

Chan’s crusade is personal. In 2008 Getty demanded $1,300 for an image that appeared illegally on Chan’s website. He promptly removed the image, apologized profusely, and in a lengthy plea to Getty for clemency, blamed “unscrupulous Web graphic designers in India” who sold him website templates that included the image.

Getty dropped its demand to $800, then $500, informing Chan (correctly) that he was legally responsible for infringements on his website, regardless of how they happened. “In fairness to our artists and customers, Getty cannot let infringers off with a cease-and-desist letter,” Getty told him in a letter he posted on the ELI website.

The above paragraph again makes it sound as if we  want a cease and desist and to use images for free, which is not something anyone on ELI has stated, sure a cease and desist would be nice, but what would be nicer is if Getty images, would back up their claims with registration info, proof they have the right to enforce copyright, as well as the method to which they arrive at the obscene numbers they are demanding...None of which they do..they just demand your money...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Chan still refused to pay, and instead launched a counter-attack, demanding proof of copyright, details of Getty’s formula for calculating fees demanded of infringers and other information. Chan says that Getty stopped pursuing him at that point, and ever since, he has been urging others who receive the letters to stand up and fight, just like he did. “It’s like buying a car,” he says. “Only dumb people pay the sticker price.”

Chan insists—despite accusations to the contrary from his critics, and his refusal to pay Getty anything—that he believes in copyright law, and the right of copyright owners to be compensated for the use of their work. He says he has no sympathy for flagrant copyright violators; he’s just advocating for small businesses and people like himself who tend to be victims of unscrupulous third-party vendors they hire to do their websites.

Of course, those vendors are often fly-by-night, overseas firms that attract customers because they’re inexpensive. And they’re inexpensive in part because they steal images. As Chan discovered in his dust up with Getty, infringers can’t hide from liability behind third-party vendors who are conveniently beyond the reach of U.S. law.

Chan says he’s pushing for what he considers more reasonable enforcement tactics. He thinks agencies should send takedown notices, and demand less—a lot less—for infringement only from those who ignore the takedown notices.

Not surprisingly, agencies are unwilling to let thieves set the terms. Attorney Carolyn Wright, who is on ELI’s list of “copyright extortionists” for her work pursuing infringers on behalf of photographers and stock agency clients, says the fees demanded are analogous to parking fines. If you park without paying, she explains, “The fine is much higher than the parking fee would be.”

Now the author himself is calling us thieves! WTF! It’s shit like this that pisses me off.. I myself spoke at length  with the author before he even interviewed Matthew, I told him of my case and how purchased the images and had a license to use the images, I also spoke to him (the author ) about  folks who got the letter for images that are clearly in the public domain.. Now I could care less about him not quoting me, but him completely dismissing these FACTS and using the terms thieves as a blanket statement is in my opinion bad reporting, biased, unprofessional, and just plain old bullshit..

Great example by photoattorney.com attorney Carolyn Wright!! Yes parking tickets are generally much more than the fee for parking, However  copyright infringement is not based on “fines” that are spelled out in any statute..In a copyright case ( in a court of law) the judge has at his/her discretion leeway in  how much to “award” based on many factors... I ask Carolyn Wright to come here to ELI and explain how an image of a city building could possibly be worth $35,000 and also show us an example of where a judge has awarded such an amount.. Sorry Carolyn Wright I think you may have drank too much Kool-aid...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

The price is what the owner wants to charge, not what the person who steals the image wants to pay,” Pigeon says. “[For infringers who get caught] their first argument is always that micro-stock is a buck a throw.” Then they invoke fair use or ignorance—“someone else did it,” says Pigeon.

Douche bag Steve Pigeon from Masterfile, doesn’t seem to understand that people that “steal” his garbage images don’t want to pay anything, that’s why they “steal” them in the first place.. On the other hand most people that inadvertently use one Masterfiles crap stock images, either by way of ignorance or a third party designer, would likely have no issue paying IF the amount was in-line to what the image is worth and if they maybe treated people with respect, as opposed to collectively calling them thieves and threatening them with lawsuits.. Apparently Steve Pigeons’ parents never taught him to treat others as he would like to be treated, his mother must be proud of him on so many levels..No wonder he couldn’t sell his shit company Masterfile. Who in their right mind wants to be associated with perhaps one of the largest copyright trolling operations in history?? Steve Pigeon and Steve Gibson of Righthaven fame sure make good bed fellows.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty and Masterfile both defend the fees they demand as reasonable, based on the cost of production and the type and duration of the illegal uses, and the cost of pursuing infringers. They concentrate their enforcement efforts on illegal commercial use. Pigeon says Masterfile pursues infringement of rights-managed images only (because royalty-free images are available from multiple sources, and the agency can’t prove where infringers steal those). He also says the agency has a policy of charging infringers three times a normal licensing fee.

“Duration of “illegal use””  another WTF statement, it’s documented that an actual customer of Getty Images let his license lapse for like a week, he then received the typical $1200.00 demand letter.. I guess because he was out of the country and unable to renew the license in a timely manner, he automatically qualifies for the title of “thief”, did I mention he was actually a long time customer of Getty Images??? This is how they treat the people they do business with??....so whether your 1 week late in renewing your license or use an image unknowingly for 3 years, you’re going to get a demand letter demanding whatever amount Getty or Masterfile feels like trying to extort, there is no rhyme or reason, these questions have been posed dozens of times, and no answer has ever been given, or at least no answer that makes any sense... It’s also worth mentioning, that when I did my interview with the author of this article I did mention the Getty customer mentioned above, but I guess he did not think it was worth mentioning for whatever reason...just say’n

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

“We’ve taken plenty of these claims to court, and the outcome has generally been favorable to us,” Pigeon says. “We go after three times standard fee for the use. That’s to get them to talk. We want to get a reasonable fee. We don’t like to settle for less than list price. We don’t want to reward people for stealing.”

I wonder why Pigeon fails to mention Chaga International, we all know who well that worked out for Masterfile..not only was the method in which MasterFAIL registered the images held invalid, it was also a 6 million dollar case!! and who was the attorney working that case, none other than ELI’s own Oscar Michelen, whose name was NEVER mentioned in this entire article.. I suppose he’s just one of us “mob” types, posting misinformation..