PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

[Matthew Chan]

This is a fair article worth reading.  I was quoted quite a bit more than I expected.  :-)

I gave an extensive phone interview to David Walker a few months ago.

My best quote on the whole article, "Only dumb people pay the sticker price."

http://pdnonline.com/news/Agencies-Step-Up-Cop-7169.shtml?imw=Y#.UNTqQcYKAWQ.twitter

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It was a very good article; I wish it had mentioned the fact that Getty refuses to provide any proof of claim to continue good faith negotiations.

[stinger]

Good story and great quotes on your part, Matt.

I would have found the story a lot more interesting if the reporter had delved into the numbers a bit more - and taken it right down to how much money the trolls earn from licensing versus from trolling.  Or even just asked the question, why are copyright images spread around illegally to the extent they are.

But, alas, the Fourth Estate is a wee vestige of what it once was.  It's why I, and a lot of people I know, ignore them much more than we ever did.

[Peeved]

Gotta love the quote from MasterFAIL's Steve Pigeon!

“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.

Regarding "third-party vendors", I felt this statement was a tad "judgmental"...from the AUTHOR...

"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.

Did not care for this statement as well...from the AUTHOR...

"Not surprisingly, agencies are unwilling to let thieves set the terms."


As for Carolyn Wright's statement....

"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.”

$35,000 is SOME PARKING TICKET fine!


Another Pigeon quote...

“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 microstock is a buck a throw.” Then they invoke fair use or ignorance—“someone else did it,” says Pigeon.

Again with the stereotyping..implying that all Infringers are thieves...period...end.


PERSONALLY speaking, I would say that there are a lot of "INNOCENT Infringers" who stumble upon images by searching FREE SITES and don't realize that those sites cannot be RELIED upon as indeed having "FREE" images for commercial usage! Same goes for those who "trusted" third party vendors to do a "legitimate" job for them! So my opinion for what it is worth should read, "Infringers are RESPONSIBLE" but not necessarily THIEVES!
 

btw..agree 100% with the "best quote" especially when the accusing party does not have EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS or the images in question are not REGISTERED with the U.S COPYRIGHT OFFICE!
 

My best quote on the whole article, "Only dumb people pay the sticker price."

 

[Matthew Chan]

Robert & I will soon be issuing separate line-by-line commentary on this article.

[SoylentGreen]

So much butthurt spewed by members of the stock image industry in the article...

"There’s a certain level of mob support, so we have to pursue [infringers] pretty hard,” says Masterfile President Steve Pigeon"

Masterfile was the most vicious and litigious of all the stock image companies, even before people (alleged infringers or otherwise) began discussing the issue.
I find it interesting that Mr Pigeon assumes that everyone that his company pursues is in fact, "guilty" of infringing.
How "hard" people are "pursued" has more to do with greed.

I noticed that Masterfile has filed a lawsuit in Canada after a long hiatus:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2248-12

S.G.

[Couch_Potato]

The thing that annoyed me most about that article was this comment from Getty

"and the agency has invested resources in photo licensing education efforts."

I have never ever seen any initiative from any stock photo company that addresses the real issue which is that sites offering free images should be used very carefully, and probably never for any corporate imagery because the risks are too high.

People obviously know that downloading an image from a site like Getty and using it without payment is wrong and I believe that almost never happens.

The film and music industry have launched large scale initiatives in the past informing the general public of copyright issues and I'm guessing the photo industry just hoped to piggytail on the back of that for free.

Until I see a large public awareness campaign then what companies like Masterfile and Getty are doing will always be seen by me as copyright extortion regardless of whether the amounts they ask for are reasonable or not.

[lucia]

pdn appears to be an online periodical trying to attract photographers.  It would hardly be surprising if it's articles tend to be a bit biased towards those trying to make money selling photos even if this means sometimes overlooking that some entities "selling" aren't really "selling".

[Lettered]

I also saw the article as being far from "fair". It did appear to me to be a veiled attempt to appear "fair".  In fact, then entire article appeared to me to be an attempt to discredit ELI while trying to appear fair and balanced.

Some initial thoughts in that regard:

1) A quote that IMO betrays the bias of the article:

Not surprisingly, agencies are unwilling to let thieves set the terms

2) Another quote from the article where the author explicitly supports Getty.  The author implies (the way I read it) that not only was Matthew legally responsible for the infringement (true IMO), but he was also responsible for Getty's exhorbitant demands (NOT true IMO).

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

3) IMO, a balanced and well researched report would have mentioned near the following quote, that these types of multipliers aren't legally applicable in the case of unregistered images:

He also says the agency has a policy of charging infringers three times a normal licensing fee

[SoylentGreen]

Question: did Getty ever prove that Matt had actually caused them any damage in legal terms?
Readers of the forum will recall that Getty doesn't own the copyrights for the majority of its content.
Getty is never able to provide proof of ownership or damages.

It would be different if the case went to court and Getty prevailed... but that never happened...
...so, Getty's opinion is just that; an "opinion".

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

...so, Getty's opinion is just that; an "opinion".

S.G.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and sometimes they just plain stink...just say'in

[lucia]

Not only is Getty's opinion just an opinion, we know that their decision was to not pursue the matter in court.

The article is worded to make it seem like Getty wants to be "tough" and is just exercising their rights. But it drops the ball when it fails to point out that while the initial letters are threatening, in many-- if not most-- cases, that's really as far as it goes.  Moreover, when they do go to court, they either (a) lose or (b) win pyrrhic victories (a violation found but very small fine levied or they find they've sued a bankrupt company.)

Also, the article doesn't mention flat out mistakes on Getty's part-- sending letters for hotlinking.  Never recognizing "fair use" and so forth.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Don't forget they also like to send out letters for images in the public domain too.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/don't-pay-getty-thank-you-eli/

Not only is Getty's opinion just an opinion, we know that their decision was to not pursue the matter in court.

The article is worded to make it seem like Getty wants to be "tough" and is just exercising their rights. But it drops the ball when it fails to point out that while the initial letters are threatening, in many-- if not most-- cases, that's really as far as it goes.  Moreover, when they do go to court, they either (a) lose or (b) win pyrrhic victories (a violation found but very small fine levied or they find they've sued a bankrupt company.)

Also, the article doesn't mention flat out mistakes on Getty's part-- sending letters for hotlinking.  Never recognizing "fair use" and so forth.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I'm glad this article exists. But to me it contains a great deal of misinformation and I think it is an effort by certain parties to "shade" the issue and make themselves look better. I found it interesting that so many of the people interviewed have been pretty well featured on the ELI site. Here are a couple of my personal "favorite" sections:

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.”)

When has ANYONE EVER said that on here. That is just outright wrong.

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.

So lets see... The ELI site has bad information, but the author doesn't specify one example. Meanwhile, the trolling industry is investing resources into education, but the writer cannot provide one example or one link. Perfect.

My final thought, I don't like this Steve Pigeon guy much. He comes off as condescending ("they invoke fair use or ignorance") and as a liar ("the outcome has generally been favorable to us").

My personal belief is the intent of this article is to leave the reader with the impression that ELI is full of half-truths. Notice they don't even mention Oscar's substantial contribution to the site. The secondary goal is to convince the reader that the majority of letter recipients cut a check to the trolls.

[Moe Hacken]

Getty mentions "a wealth of misinformation" on the ELI site but fails to provide even one example.

Masterfile's Steve Pigeon states that “We’ve taken plenty of these claims to court, and the outcome has generally been favorable to us." This is a questionable statement that I would qualify as misinformation.

The article also fails to mention the questionable practice of sending bandwidth-hogging crawlers to troll for potential infringements.

I find it a tad biased towards the trolls, but I think it's good to put the problem out there on public forums to make people aware how rampant the practice of copyright trolling has become. It also exposes the fact that the stock image industry has monetized this practice, although it could be more explicit about this.

Kudos to Matt for his statements and for landing this interview. This is sure to catch a lot of eyeballs and raise a lot of eyebrows.