ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on January 05, 2012, 02:23:49 PM
-
We have a new letter submitted by an ELI reader who has authorized me to post his redacted copy of his settlement demand letter. This never-before-seen letter is from CPM Legal LLC written by California lawyer Christian Martinen. This letter is once again on behalf of Hawaiian Art Network. The photographer in question is Wendy Chattil.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77260408/CPM-Creative-Settlement-Demand-Letter-by-Christian-P-Martinen
CPM Creative Legal & Production can be found at: http://www.cpm-creative.com
I attached a copy of registration that was later submitted to the letter recipient. However, page 2 is missing. The page that identifies the images registered appears to be conveniently missing. I cannot tell if this is a simply oversight or intentionally left out.
Let's go find out more about these folks. The original letter recipient may chime into this thread.
-
At least the letter has some information indicating something was registered.
I went to the copyright search http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ used the advanced search and found
Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)
Search Request: Builder = (Shattil Wendy)[ in Name: All ]AND(Rozinski)[ in Name: All ]
Search Results: Displaying 29 of 33 entries
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0001301433 / 2004-05-25
Title: Webshots uploads 2/15-5/18/2004.
Description: Photos.
Copyright Claimant: Wendy Shattil, 1949-, & Bob Rozinski, 1938-
Date of Creation: 2004
Date of Publication: 2004-02-15
Previous Registration: Prev. reg. 1991, VA 451-671.
Basis of Claim: New Matter: addition of American flag background.
Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Names: Shattil, Wendy, 1949-
Rozinski, Bob, 1938-
I don't know enough to figure out how to view the actual images that were registered. But I am intrigued because I'm not seeing any American flag background behind the cute baby skunks.
-
I'm learning. I noticed the previous updates an image from 1991. I think it might be this:
Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)
Search Request: Builder = (Shattil Wendy)[ in Name: All ]AND(Rozinski)[ in Name: All ]
Search Results: Displaying 15 of 33 entries
Previous Next
Detailed Record
[Bald eagle portrait]
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0000451671 / 1991-02-12
Title: [Bald eagle portrait]
Description: photo.
Notes: Title from appl.
Copyright Claimant: Wendy Shattil & Bob Rozinski
Date of Creation: 1980
Date of Publication: est. 1Jan84
Date in Notice: notice: 1980
Authorship on Application: Bob Rozinski.
Names: Shattil, Wendy
Rozinski, Bob, 1938-
-
Great find Lucia, wouldn't it be something if they offered this up and it was not for the image in question!! It's one thing to use scare tactics, but this would be really low, unethical, and truly disgusting!
::EDIT:: that second one you show , mentions a bald eagle.. I'm no zoololgist, but I can tell the difference between and eagle and a skunk!
-
I'd avoid getting to excited though. It might just be a clerical screwup. Googling around it's clear these two photographers have registered lots of wildlife images, and published in books. So it may turn out that they sent the wrong registration but a registration does exist.
-
Agreed it could be an error, in the meantime heres a link to the NY Bar Assoc. and Mr Martinens' info
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=5620050
There is no listing for him at the Claifornia Bar Associations site...
-
Is it just me, or do all attorneys have an entertainment background??
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-martinen/6/58/160
-
all kinds of tidbits floating around of our latest copyright troll..
http://www.visionmagazine.com/archives/1112/1112_culture_christian_martin.html
http://soulisticliving.wordpress.com/
http://www.adrenalineradio.com/shows/87-think-oneness-radio
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=642765925&sk=wall
-
http://www.visionmagazine.com/archives/1112/1112_culture_christian_martin.html
"Random Acts Of Kindness" SERIOUSLY?
-
Guessing a baby skunk image might be in the childrens book, I googled a bit. That particular skunk image doesn't seem to be in this book--
http://books.google.com/books?id=BGx2GQ5rjOMC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=wildlife-watching+for+kids+skunk&source=bl&ots=HnUA0ovyA7&sig=k1At-PwnF7_ngUWuxWYeWJVzJYs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jQIGT52gAuqrsQKL0KCRCg&sqi=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
So, the 2001 copyright won't cover it. I'm looking for the calendar. :)
I found a 2009 book-- but I don't see this on her . The text with "skunk" is singular:
http://books.google.com/books?id=i20XkUNPCywC&pg=PT27&dq=Shattil+skunk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0gMGT4neO4jDgQfsr_3gAw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=skunk&f=false
What I gauge as likely is if the image is registered, it's likely to be in one of these:
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu001076459 / 2011-08-25
Application Title: 2011_Jan thru June_Unpublished_Images_Registration.
Title: 2011_Jan thru June_Unpublished_Images_Registration.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Wendy Shattil. Address: P.O. Box 370422, Denver, CO, 80237, United States.
Robert Rozinski. Address: P.O. Box 370422, Denver, CO, 80237, United States.
Date of Creation: 2011
Authorship on Application: Wendy Shattil; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)
Robert Rozinski; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)
Rights and Permissions: W Shattil, P.O. Box 370422, Denver, CO, 80237, United States
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
or
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu001061589 / 2011-03-25
Application Title: 2010_Unpublished_Images_Registration.
Title: 2010_Unpublished_Images_Registration.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Wendy Shattil. Address: P.O. Box 370422, Denver, CO, 80237, United States.
Robert Rozinski. Address: P.O. Box 370422, Denver, CO, 80237, United States.
Date of Creation: 2010
Authorship on Application: Wendy Joy Shattil, 1949- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)
Robert Alexander Rozinski, 1938- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)
Rights and Permissions: Wendy Joy Shattil, (303) 721-1991, wshattil@yahoo.com
Names: Shattil, Wendy Joy, 1949-
Rozinski, Robert Alexander, 1938-
These are e-filed, it's my guess that the filing isn't limited to whatever was selected for a book or calendar. The recipient of the letter might want to look in there.
-
Sorry if this is a double post!
Photogs flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/20222369@N05/3978658613/in/photostream/
And not surprisingly to me, this exact image happens to appear on several free wallpaper sites, although not as many as V.K. Tylors, tineye.com only revealed 75 results, mostly blogs and whatnot, but a few wallpaper site in the mix.
http://www.tineye.com/search/c51bf3eb2ef34626d583619dfbd9272ca37aa238/?page=7&sort=score&order=desc
-
Sorry if this is a double post!
Photogs flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/20222369@N05/3978658613/in/photostream/
And not surprisingly to me, this exact image happens to appear on several free wallpaper sites, although not as many as V.K. Tylors, tineye.com only revealed 75 results, mostly blogs and whatnot, but a few wallpaper site in the mix.
http://www.tineye.com/search/c51bf3eb2ef34626d583619dfbd9272ca37aa238/?page=7&sort=score&order=desc
Also NOT SURPRISING looking at tineye, is the LACK of the "copyright identification information" which the demand letter so graciously accused the RECIPIENT of removing!
"Besides violating the copyrights in your infringing uses of the image in question, you have violated Section 1202 (b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by removing copyright identification information from the one image that were used on the (http://www.Default.htm) website.Section 1202(b) of the DMCA provides:§ 1202. Integrity of copyright management information(b) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION. — No person shall without the authority of the copyrightowner or the law — (1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information"
"The DMCA provides for minimum statutory damages in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000 as to each violation. Copyright management information includes the name of the author of the work. Ms. Shattil’s name is included on her images wherever those images legitimately appear, but it has been cropped off the images for useon your website. This subjects you to minimum statutory damages of $2,500 for the DMCA violations concerning the one image, in addition to attorney fees and costs, and additional damages for the copyright infringements. The maximum statutory damages for the DMCA claims alone would be $125,000. The one use of the above entitled image at this website would result in substantial actual damages. An award of statutory damages for the copyright infringements would likely be multiples of actual damages and would also include the attorney fees and costs of bringing suit.
The demand letter is also very POORLY written and can someone say, "SPELL CHECK"?
-
Here is some info on Christian Martinens partner:
Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/joy-de-leon/6/87/389
Bar Assoc.: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/209141
-
Wow, I'm impressed at all the responses so quickly. I'm the one who got this letter. I'll chime in later with some more details but check this out to see how widely this image has been distributed:
http://www.google.com/search?q=baby+skunks&hl=en&gbv=2&imgrefurl=http://pixdaus.com/?sort%3Dtag%26tag%3Dbaby%2520skunks&imgurl=http://pixdaus.com/pics/1242855936ie9EpYX.jpg&w=800&h=589&sig=116627408044841583713&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSEgnfjnpSU9BMSiGDFG6TyZV2Rg&sa=X&ei=LwzmToKGEOLc0QHUwKGZDg&ved=0CAUQrBE&biw=1707&bih=971
All I used was a thumbnail of this image as a link to an public service advice page in a website for a small dog grooming business describing how to clean your dog if it got skunked. I am not a professional web designer and I do this website for free as a friend to the owners. Talk about no good deed going unpunished.
-
I cannot believe the response time and work done on this issue by this forum! All I can say is I am glad I am on your side!
-
I would also appears, that the registration sent with the letter may be for a collection /compilation of photos, I'd have to go back and refresh my memory, but isn't there sometimes an issue with this in relation to the Muensch case??
-
Jeeze... That skunk image is EVERYWHERE on the net. I thought it was interesting that this page claims different people hold the copyright:
http://www.saveauburntrail.org/mammals
This page watermarks the image: http://prodam.slando.com.ua/kiev_city/skuns_P_34839539.html
It's available on the site http://pixdaus.com/?fun=about. They imply that the images are uploaded for all to share. There is a mechanism for rights holders to notify them if an image doesn't belong there. Do you think HAN used it? I doubt it.
The same is true of http://www.dailypictures.info/free-pictures/3158/Skunk-Babies-jpg. That site basically says "Free Pictures" all over it.
Milosron I hope you are encouraged by all this and will feel free to tell Christian Martinens to pound sand.
My reply would be along the lines of: Due to the prevalence of the image on literally hundreds of web sites, some of which offer the image for free and some which claim they own the copyright, you were led to believe that the image was in the public domain. Although you support artists' rights to get paid for their work, you will not be held hostage by an exorbitant claim. Similar images are available from micro stock companies for less than $10 and you are unwilling to pay even that until it is proven that H.A.N. either holds the copyright for the image they are claiming to represent or they can provide a chain of title showing how it is that they came to represent this image. Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance Mr. Christian that you notify your client, HAN, and let them know that further contact will require you to retain legal council and HAN will be responsible for all fees related to this."
That's basically what I'd tell him.
-
Oscar,
I was thinking to myself that presenting a new case or extortion letter to the ELI Community is like feeding fresh meat to the sharks. It didn't take long for them to tear this case apart and analyze it from top to bottom. Oh, did I forget to mention it was only Day 1? LOL.
You guys are all crazy but I love the analysis and attention to detail. I would say pretty nice for a bunch of non-lawyers (with loads of respect to Oscar, of course!)
-
A very simple question: Where is Page 2 of the copyright registration? And more importantly, what images are listed on Page 2? It seems to have been conveniently left out.
Also, Christian Martinen does not strike me as a litigator type based on their web page. I hate to keep saying this but there is no other way around it.... I don't think Christian is anywhere close to being an Oscar Michelen.
My initial conclusion is Hawaiian Art Network continues its tradition of only hiring the "finest" and experienced lawyers. I would very much like to find out what the collection split is. Is it 50/50? 60/40? 70/30? I have to believe the lawyer gets the smaller number if that is the case.
-
Sorry for the length of this reply but I thought it would be useful for you to get the whole story. Here are the details so far:
On Nov 2, 2011 I received this email with the demand letter attached as a pdf document. It was sent to the contact us email address on the website which is forwarded to me as well as the business owners. Since I do this web site for free it's registered in my name and I provide the hosting also. It was sent from a gmail account called cpmlegalteam and signed by Robert? It seemed so unprofessional that I immediately suspected that this was a scam.
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached our demand letter to cease and desist using our client's copyrighted material on your website, ********************.
Please contact us immediately to resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
Robert
CPM Legal
866-***-***
This was quite upsetting and scary. I immediately removed the image and deleted the file from the server etc. Two days later I responded via email:
As you requested I have deleted the image files in question from the website and backup computer.
I originally found that image via a Google search and there was no indication that it was copyrighted material or I certainly would not have used it. I was not using the image file that you noted in the letter but a low resolution 2" thumbnail.
The image was not used in any way to generate business. It was used to call attention to a public service page on how to clean you pet that was sprayed by a skunk.
I am an amateur web designer and I created and maintain this website pro-bono, as a friend to the owners of the very small and local dog grooming business, European Dog Grooming.
If that image file is indeed copyrighted I apologize to your client for any inconvenience it might have caused.
I received this reply from Robert - whoever Robert is?
Mr. *******:
Thank you for your letter.
The following is a brief response to the points in your email:
First, the image you used on your website was NOT in the public domain. The concept of "public domain" is a legal question. An image becomes apart of the public domain only after 70 years after the death of the author. If you did not purchase or create the work (e.g. text, photograph, image, picture, sound recording, etc.) then it is a copyright infringement and illegal to use the image without permission of the owner. Google only searches websites and organizes information and images for the searcher. These images may NOT be used by anyone without the permission of the owner.
Second, it is not important whether or not you had the intent to violate the copyright of our client.
Intent is not an element in proving liability under copyright law. Also, it is irrelevant why or how you used the image because the simple display of the image on your website subjects you to liability under copyright law.
Finally, all of the elements of a copyright infringement exists regarding the use of our client's property on your website. The owner of the image and holder of the copyright hired our law firm to demand that you cease and desist use of the copyrighted material AND secure a monetary settlement amount of $2,245 for the wrongful use of her property without authority.
We strongly advise you to resolve this matter immediately to avoid additional attorney fees, other expenses and court costs that will be assessed to you.
Please contact us 866-431-6520 to settle this matter or have your attorney contact us.
Sincerely,
Robert
CPM Legal
866-431-6520
At this point, being quite worried and upset I mulled over my options. So, first I called my personal home insurance agent to inquire whether or not this sort of thing is covered. They had me actually file a claim. I sent them the demand letter and explained my situation much as I explained above. In a about a week, I received a 5 page letter sent by certified mail explaining why I was not covered by my policy. So much for that. So, next I contact a lawyer who we have used in my business from time to time. He agreed to review this. He came back with what he felt were my options: Pay the $2245 or negotiate a lesser sum or for a fee somewhat more than Oscar is charging, hire him to write a letter or do nothing a wait to see if they actually file a lawsuit and then deal with it.
I wasn't about the pay the extortion. Dealing with them felt dirty since I felt that this was a scam.
The letter seemed somewhat inviting since it would get them off my back but the lawyer wanted more than I felt I could afford and besides this lawyer is a general lawyer with little or no experience in copyright law.
That's when I went to the web. I looked up the CPM lawyers on the state bar sites and found that they were real. Then I came across Matt's blog on his business website that described what had happened to me exactly. With some of the knowledge gained from Matt's blog, I responded to Robert (whoever he is?)
Robert,
A few points.
1. The image I downloaded is called Skunk Babies.jpg not SR-VA001301433-Skunk002. I tried to find that image on your client’s websites and could not locate it. (I was looking in the HAN websites here)
2. You have not sent me proof that your skunk image is copyright. Prove to me your client is the true owner and show me proof of copyright including all the properties of the image.
3. On the web there are scores of sites, maybe 100’s around the world that have this same skunk image on them. None that I saw have any copyright information on them.
See: This following link shows scores of sites that have this image. Almost every one of these goes to different web site.
http://www.google.com/search?q=baby+skunks&hl=en&gbv=2&imgrefurl=http://pixdaus.com/%3Fsort%3Dtag%26tag%3Dbaby%2520skunks&imgurl=http://pixdaus.com/pics/1242855936ie9EpYX.jpg&w=800&h=589&sig=116627408044841583713&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSEgnfjnpSU9BMSiGDFG6TyZV2Rg&sa=X&ei=LwzmToKGEOLc0QHUwKGZDg&ved=0CAUQrBE&biw=1707&bih
=971
4. Because I downloaded this image from some 3rd party site and did not know the image was allegedly protected, infringement, if any, was not willful hence I am not liable as you claim.
First send me the proof of copyright and we can proceed from there.
Now three weeks went by and I thought maybe they gave up on me because I just wasn't going to send them money. But on December 30, 2011 I got this signed by Mr. Martinen himself. Attached was page 1 of the so called copyright registration form:
Mr. ******:
1. The title of the image that was copyrighted includes the copyright number "SR-VA001301433." A *.jpg name can be changed for marketing purposes but it remains the same image.
2. Please find the image on our client's website at: Wendy Shattil
3. We have hundreds of enforcement cases regarding this one image as well as many others of Ms. Shattil. A copyright holder must enforce the copyright or risk losing the protections a copyright affords the holder. Many times those who infringe on copyrights will photo-shop the copyright information off the image. As you see on the website link in point #2, the copyright information is on the image. Whether or not you took the information off the image or someone else, the use of the image without a license from the artist is an infringement.
4. In the event that you had no intent on violating the DCMA rights of our client by altering the image, then without more proof we will not pursue this cause of action. However, through your website you have infringed on our clients copyright and we have the obligation to enforce it by seeking monetary damages. We do this by settling for a past use license and release of liability with no right to use the image in the future.
5. Please see the copyright registration form under CR# SR-VA0001301433 attached. Below is the copyrighted image cataloged under the copyright registration number with the US Copyright Office.
Contact us at 866-***-**** to settle this matter.
Sincerely,
Christian Martinen, Esq.
CPM Legal
***-***-****
Finally going back to the web and Matt's blog I discovered ELI. I contacted Matt, sent him all the above info. He posted the letter and registation form and that is it to date.
I had some other thoughts.
I actually called the Attorney General's office in my state and had a long talk with a very nice women. Her suggestion was to report this to the FBI via a website www.ic3.gov (Internet Crime Complaint Center).
Contact Call for action lines on local TV stations or newspapers. Ms. Shattil might not like it if the Denver Post ran an article that one of Denver's favorite photographers is engaged in a scam.
Do any of you think that there is any sense in appealing to Mr. "Random acts of Kindness" Martinen's sense of ethics. Do you think he might be unaware that he is one of many lawyers hired by HAN over the years to pull this extortion on people?
Awaiting your comments.
-
Oscar,
I was thinking to myself that presenting a new case or extortion letter to the ELI Community is like feeding fresh meat to the sharks. It didn't take long for them to tear this case apart and analyze it from top to bottom. Oh, did I forget to mention it was only Day 1? LOL.
You guys are all crazy but I love the analysis and attention to detail. I would say pretty nice for a bunch of non-lawyers (with loads of respect to Oscar, of course!)
INAL, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the case is torn apart. Certainly, it seems plausible that this case might not hold up. The accusation the letter recipient removed copyright info isn't going to hold up.
But it's also still plausible that:
- The photographer listed on the letter appears to be one of two copyright claimants for that image and it's still quite plausible she <I>is</i> a claimant. (You would need a lawyer to explain whether the existence of a 2nd potential claimant makes any difference should a case go to court. The other claimant was older than Shattil. Could his heirs also be granting licenses? This is information we do not have at hand.)
- HAN may or may not have exclusive license. ( I don't know how their failure to enforce at all these other infringements affects their license-- but they may have one and the judge might interpret it as exclusive. ) But even if HAN doesn't have an exclusive license, the case could just be taken up by the copyright owner. So, the issue of exclusive license might not be all that helpful.
- The letter sent by the lawyer and the registration don't appear match the image-- as the copyright info seems to suggest that particular registration is for an image of a bald eagle with a flag on it. BUT on the other hand, that particular artist has taken images of baby skunks, and has copyrighted a whole bunch of images. At least twice images seem to have been uploaded using a web tool, which suggests that the photographer may have uploaded lots of the previously unpublished image. That could include this particular image of baby skunks If so, I image that the photographer would still have a case for some sort of infringment and the images likely would have been registered prior to their posting on the dog grooming site.
- Assuming the copyright owner isn't "seeding" images (and we have no reason to believe she is) I have to feel at least a little sympathy for the copyright owner/photographer whose images are being infringed massively by sites all over the place. It appears is about 62 years old, and probably would like to make some money from the images. Certainly, when a commercial site uses it, she would like to make money.
Mind you, cute as those skunks are, no end user would pay a huge amount for their use on any web site. But, ideally if HAN weren't the intermediary, I image that the photographer and the creator of the dog grooming site could just negotiate a reasonable settlement-- possibly even including the skunk image and linking to the photographer's site so that the photographer could get more sales!
It does look like any accusation that the web site creator stripped copyright information would be impossible to prove. (I would think nearly any judge looking at the evidence of all the images without copyright info on the web and conclude it's more likely the web site creator did not strip copyright information.)
I think the letter recipient needs to request page 2 and also communicate to HAN that without page 2 based on the text at the copyright office, it appears that registration is not for the baby skunks image. But I suspect they shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the skunks have no copyright at all (they probably do) nor that they aren't registered. The photographer may just have pulled up the wrong registration.
-
Here's an novel idea.
Don't buy into the scam, and don't pay.
That little voice in your head that says, "Wow. theyre asking for a lot of money, and can't provide evidence... this must be a scam".
Listen to that voice. The simplest explanation is usually the best one.
S.G.
-
Soylent,
I think the photographer and their lawyer are being heavy handed. But I also think you need to be careful before you assume you can convince disinterested parties that the request is actually a scam.
I looked at the photographer's site http://www.dancingpelican.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=66, and the copyright office. I would gauge it highly probable the 'page 1' of the copyright was provided and the skunk image will be found in the other set of image with copyrights from 2004. These are: :
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0001303006 / 2005-02-04
Title: 2004 Dancingpelican uploads.
Description: CD-ROM.
Notes: Photos.
Copyright Claimant: Wendy Shattil, 1949-, & Bob Rozinski, 1938-
Date of Creation: 2004
Date of Publication: 2004-02-01
Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Names: Shattil, Wendy, 1949-
Rozinski, Bob, 1938-
Previous
If the image is in the collection, quite likely page 2 might be omitted from a fax because it is a CD-ROM, not a paper printout.
It might be useful for the person who was sent the HAN letter to try to get a copy of the CD-ROM and read the license provisions in the CD-ROM etc. I suspect escalating with pugnacious language suggesting the photographer is a scammer is not in anyone's best interest.
-
I wouldn't suggest that anyone use any kind of negative response that would anger one's adversary.
I'd rather people respond only when absolutely necessary, in fact.
My personal opinion is that these demand letters are often scams when dubious claims are made, and it'd difficult to make heads or tails of what image they're even talking about.
There's a great onus on the "accuser" to provide some proof that's decipherable.
I also feel that the thought processes of "it might be registered" (just because the accuser didn't provide any real evidence otherwise), or "I'm not sure what image they're talking about, but maybe I did use an image that I shouldn't have" (again, a feeling based on the lack of evidence provided) leads to people paying a lot of money based on fear.
That is, a reaction that comes only from the feeling that nobody can guarantee that the other party can't "win".
I find the vast majority of these claims to be dubious at best. It's time to recognise this for what it really is.
If the accuser won't provide further clarification of the facts, then there's the answer. It's scam-ola.
S.G.
-
Seems to me, just about every letter sent from whichever attorney affiliated with whatever stock image company always seem to think, that it is up to the recipient to prove they are innocent, with the exception of Masterfile, none of them really offer solid proof of anything, in regards to registration or anything else... I like to think the word "scam" is used in the same sense as the word "extortion", heck it could be even called "phishing", in a sense they are just dangling bait and waiting for the un-educated to come along and bite, thus paying these outrageous amounts.
any whoozle I just came across this little tidbit about Mr. Martinen
"Armed with his double law degrees, he is also an active independent producer and talent manager. " oh and realtor as well
http://www.surfview.com/seattcpm.htm
-
Well, we can call it "scam", "legalized extortion", "bulls*%T", or what ever, but the bottom line and fact is that HAN and MASTERFILE DO SUE!
To the recipient in this case, the best thing to do is get your P's and Q's in order and be PREPARED to go to court if necessary should you choose not to pay the demand.
FACT: There is a registered number provided in this case. That registration number does show up in a search of the U.S. Copyright Website. VA0001301433 by Shattil, Wendy.
FACT: Can you be sued for "statutory damages" when a "registration" is involved? Answer: YES! This does not however mean you will be held to pay those damages and could prove "innocent infringement" and be held liable for "actual damages" only.
Question to ask: What would this cost in ATTORNEY FEES in comparison against the demand request? Personally, we'd rather pay the attorney fees.
;)
In this case, the registration number shows up in the U.S. Copyright Office as Lucia showed, under the title of "Webshot uploads" which are dated February 15th - May 18th of 2004. This seems to be a "compilation" or "catalog" registration.
It was once stated by Oscar that "compilation registration" does not always provide protection over the individual images within the compilation. This is something that needs to be looked into.
-
The registration says "photos".
It could be a "bulk" registration. If it is, they'd have difficulty winning in court, due to a prior precident.
FYI, you can't own "copyright" to a national flag.
Fight. Fight. Fight.
S.G.
-
As far as we know Hawaiian Art Network has indeed filed 3 lawsuits, each of these were filed in Hawaii and 2 of the 3 were for multiple images 10+ and these 2 are also international businesses. Will they file suit over 1 image in the states? that has yet to be determined. It is also worth noting that the attorney working the cases (J.Stephen Street) in Hawaii has also been counsel for Pacific Stock and has been in practice longer that some of these other have been alive.
As for the 3rd case I'm not exactly sure if this was for multiple images or not, and to date there hasn't been any updates in the court dockets, hopefully the recipient of this letter will return to the forums and give us an update on his case.
-
I appreciate the good discussion here.
I think that all the companies involved have sued at some point; from Getty to Corbis all the way to Riddick.
I know that's probably obvious to most; the strategy is that if they don't sue (or at least file the papers), nobody would pay.
S.G.
-
Lesson Number UNO:
If you ARE sued by HAN, MAKE SURE YOU RESPOND in a timely manner and do NOT ALLOW for a DEFAULT!
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/hawaiian-art-network-lawsuit-collection/
That really sucks!
-
This morning, I noticed something about the baby skunks image in question. The image sited and reproduced in the CPM Legal letter to me, and the one we see in 100 of places on the web, shows the tail of the skunk on the left curved to the left. As pointed out by mcfilms (thank you so much), others claim copyright to this image. See http://www.saveauburntrail.org/mammals for example.
The image on Ms. Shatill's website is a bit different: http://www.dancingpelican.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=66. Note - The tails on both skunks are straight up. I could not find any other baby skunk images on her website.
What to you think about that?
Ron
-
Just like they accuse you of removing copyright information, they would probably state, that it is their image and that it was altered / photoshopped. Just like Getty told me when I produced the license for images / templates that were purchased well over 10 years ago.." Anybody could have created this license"..
-
milosron -- That's a "bingo"! Although probably taken seconds apart, they are not the same image. There is one that has the photographer's copyright burned into it and (supposedly) has been registered. And then there is the image all over the internet on hundreds of sites (including one that claims copyright on that image -- be sure to get a screenshot of that).
You've gotta fight this one. Although I am willing to bet they will not go to court over this.
-
Referring to http://www.saveauburntrail.org/mammals, I wonder where they got the baby skunks image which looks like the bottom was cropped off and how they claim the copyright? I don't want to get others in trouble over this. I am hoping that exposing this demand letter practice would save others from receiving one, not inviting one for them. That website is a do good site after all.
-
I understand not wanting to involve them. But it is part of your defense. Why not contact them and ask where it came from and also inform them of the copyright troll activity? You may be helping them.
-
OK, I did contact him and warn him. We'll see what information he can provide.
-
Personally Ron, for your defense, I would take screen shots of EVERY PHOTO that you can find on the net using this image which does NOT HAVE the copyright information on them. Make sure the DATE is showing in all of your screen shots. Print hard copies and keep them ready to go! This will show all of the possibilities as to where you may have gotten the image and that YOU did NOT remove the copyright info!
Personally, I agree with Mcfilms that you should fight this one but of course ultimately the decision is yours.
-
To document the images use http://www.webcitation.org/ . Try using it at tineye, google etc. If they block it, then just use it at individual pages.
-
Something else for your defense:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/possible-entrapment-scheme-by-vincent-k-tylor-hawaiian-art-network/
Does HAN have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS for this image for which to bring suit against you!
-
Something else for your defense:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/possible-entrapment-scheme-by-vincent-k-tylor-hawaiian-art-network/
Does HAN have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS for this image for which to bring suit against you!
Probably not, IF and thats a big IF they were to file suit they would just name the photographer in the suit as well, like they have with the 3 other suits..
-
Thank you all for your advise.
-
I just watched the latest update video with Matt and mc. I appreciate all the work you do; and Matt, I do get it. As a newbie I am just trying to get all the advice and insight I can. How was I to know that 1000's of people get these letters and that I am not "special" until it happened to me. I discovered ELI just a few days ago and needed to spend enough time on ELI to "get it."
-
HEY!
I think you ARE "special"! Don't listen to MATT! LOL!
;)
-
HEY!
I think you ARE "special"! Don't listen to MATT! LOL!
;)
We're all special inour own unique ways, just not when it comes to getting the letters!
Now I must go back and refresh my memory of Peeved's special story, glad to see "she's" becoming an active community member!
-
milosron, when I first got my letter over a year ago, I thought Matt and Oscar would sometimes be a little short with people. But I totally get it now. People come to the site totally freaking out because they got "the letter." It's easy to feel like you are being singled out. But once you dig into this site you'll find that almost all the questions you might have, have already been answered.
Another pattern that emerges is that some people sound like they are ready to stand up to the stock companies. But after the ELI community spends time coaching and trying to help them, they "chicken out" and ultimately roll over. Apparently they decide to settle and cut a check and never are seen on this forum. Well, this emboldens the copyright trolls and they just keep pumping out the letters.
You seem like a nice "guy" (since you saw the interview you can tell I can't guess gender over the internet). Maybe you are too nice. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no farther." You have to get mad and mean about this. I feel you have a strong case here. If you're up for it, you have a great support network here. But if your not -- and I intend no offense -- you are kind of wasting everyone's time.
-
mc - how did you ever guess that I was a "nice guy" and thanks for the words of wisdom? I hope not to waste anybody's time. I would rather pay Oscar than them but first I am composing my own next response to Martinen. (BTW - while I was reviewing those links you and others supplied in order to document them, the baby skunks image on the "dailypictures" site was gone and instead I got a virus (the bad one that says I have a virus and have to send money to fix it). Talk about being punished for good deeds. Thank heavens for Malwarebytes which I carry with me always.)
A couple of questions.
1- I've been reading as much as I can on ELI and it doesn't appear that the defense team feels that the seeding of images to entrap people is necessarily illegal, I suppose because of the ambiguity of the copyright laws and how do we prove who is doing the seeding? In an earlier post I mentioned that when I first received my letter I smelled scam right away and after doing some pre-ELI research on my own, called my Attorney General's Office and after a lengthy discussion with a nice woman she suggested I file a complaint at www.ice3.gov the Internet Crime Complaint Center. Does anyone feel that this would productive? I don't mean to do this instead of putting up my own fight but in addition to it.
2- From your experience is there a good time to inform the lawyer that you are consulting with ELI? Or maybe that's not necessary. I just googled "CPM Creative" and there is already a link to the letter.
-
I don't think any of us ever said the seeding of images was legal or not, however if one were able to somehow prove that an artist was intentionally seeding free site with images, then pursuing alleged infringements, I find it hard to believe any judge would see this in a good light..regardless if it's legal or not.. To my knowledge this has never been brought in a court..yet.
Not to backtrack on the "seeding" theory, but another possability is that these free wallpaper site feed off of themselves..meaning once an image gets on one, a robot can then "scrape" the images, before you know it that one site has had multiple scrapers and the images appear on multiple sites..just another theory..again the question is proving the seeding.. I also believe that one doesn't really need to prove this...just showing a judge that said image appears on x amount of sites will weaken any case, and certainly lean to the side of innoncent infringement..
I would not advise anybody that you are "consulting" with ELI, as this site is strictly informational, and we're certainly not lawyers (except Oscar)..besides chance are they already know you're discussing this with us..we're getting pretty well known these days..from both sides
-
Hey milosron,
I'm glad you are down for the fight. And hopefully you have the ability to devote the time and energy to your case. Sometimes I say things to challenge people and check in to see if they are serious. Because honestly, when I consider the time I have spent on my issue and all the others I try to help with, it would have made more sense financially for me to just pay the fools. I think it takes a healthy dose of outrage and indignation about what some stock companies are doing in order to really see the fight through.
I would encourage you to follow your state attorney general's advice and file a complaint at www.ice3.gov the Internet Crime Complaint Center. Especially if, as you say, you are doing it in addition to your other efforts.
-
I'll second that notion to file the complaint, and my apologies for not addressing it in my previous post!
-
Glad to hear it. We are still rooting for you. These ELI Forums and the ELI Video Updates are every letter recipients best resource.
I just watched the latest update video with Matt and mc. I appreciate all the work you do; and Matt, I do get it. As a newbie I am just trying to get all the advice and insight I can. How was I to know that 1000's of people get these letters and that I am not "special" until it happened to me. I discovered ELI just a few days ago and needed to spend enough time on ELI to "get it."
-
What people need to understand is that trying to solely "out-lawyer" them with a legal argument only goes so far. For 99% of the cases, they won't listen. mcfilms happens to be the 1% who was successful in making that happen. I can't spell out everything buy my track of letters speak for themselves fighting off all kinds of accusations from lawyers threatening ELI. You can find them on http://scribd.com/extortionletterinfo/shelf.
The meek and the weak will definitely fall. They spend their time on the easy fish, not vocal fighting guys like us. We are unpredictable and they know there could be unintended, negative consequences dealing with someone who talks too much.
If you don't have the time or stomach for this, I think hiring Oscar is a great option. He can save people LOTs of time. But people who cry they don't have a lot of money don't get a lot of sympathy on ELI either because we know that filing a lawsuit for a couple of images is pretty low. So, you can either pay Oscar's discounted legal fees or you pay in personal time and energy to get yourself "trained".
But we cannot save people from themselves, nor can we tell people what THEY should do. Every person must take that responsibility. We can only hope you will stand up or if you must pay, pay a "reasonable" amount, not the "ransom" amount.
mc - how did you ever guess that I was a "nice guy" and thanks for the words of wisdom? I hope not to waste anybody's time. I would rather pay Oscar than them but first I am composing my own next response to Martinen. (BTW - while I was reviewing those links you and others supplied in order to document them, the baby skunks image on the "dailypictures" site was gone and instead I got a virus (the bad one that says I have a virus and have to send money to fix it). Talk about being punished for good deeds. Thank heavens for Malwarebytes which I carry with me always.)
A couple of questions.
1- I've been reading as much as I can on ELI and it doesn't appear that the defense team feels that the seeding of images to entrap people is necessarily illegal, I suppose because of the ambiguity of the copyright laws and how do we prove who is doing the seeding? In an earlier post I mentioned that when I first received my letter I smelled scam right away and after doing some pre-ELI research on my own, called my Attorney General's Office and after a lengthy discussion with a nice woman she suggested I file a complaint at www.ice3.gov the Internet Crime Complaint Center. Does anyone feel that this would productive? I don't mean to do this instead of putting up my own fight but in addition to it.
2- From your experience is there a good time to inform the lawyer that you are consulting with ELI? Or maybe that's not necessary. I just googled "CPM Creative" and there is already a link to the letter.
-
Just to add to mcfilms comment, every ELI Defense Team member has had to draw a line in the sand. And every one of us had to go through supporting "newbies" that come from nowhere. I used to get all kinds of phone calls from people who did ZERO homework. I finally put an end to that.
Some newbies have done quite well defending themselves, others cave in never to be heard again. DieselFish comes to mind as being successful in his fight with Masterfile. Even if he settles and pays, he did way better than the person who rolled over. He has gotten the ELI community to give him huge visibility to his case to the point that the Masterfile employee is now under watch. However, it all started with him getting educated, making a stand, inviting help, share his information, etc.
DieselFish has gotten more leverage because the Masterfile employee got stupid and began embarrassing himself.
milosron, when I first got my letter over a year ago, I thought Matt and Oscar would sometimes be a little short with people. But I totally get it now. People come to the site totally freaking out because they got "the letter." It's easy to feel like you are being singled out. But once you dig into this site you'll find that almost all the questions you might have, have already been answered.
Another pattern that emerges is that some people sound like they are ready to stand up to the stock companies. But after the ELI community spends time coaching and trying to help them, they "chicken out" and ultimately roll over. Apparently they decide to settle and cut a check and never are seen on this forum. Well, this emboldens the copyright trolls and they just keep pumping out the letters.
You seem like a nice "guy" (since you saw the interview you can tell I can't guess gender over the internet). Maybe you are too nice. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no farther." You have to get mad and mean about this. I feel you have a strong case here. If you're up for it, you have a great support network here. But if your not -- and I intend no offense -- you are kind of wasting everyone's time.
-
Matthew - Thanks for the pep talk and for everything you do here. I am going to at least give it one more try on my own using all that I am learning here. So, if I use some text from one of your letters you won't site me for copyright infringement? ;D
-
Before you use my text, let me first go register my letter with the copyright agency (after the fact). That way I have better standing when I send you the ELI Extortion Letter.
The ELI Extortion Letter is the one where we suck in people to read the multiple letters I have written to various lawyers, agencies, etc. and "seeded" into Scribd. Then, when you incorporate the text I originally wrote into your own letters, you will then receive a screenshot of the Scribd document, the "after-the-fact" copyright registration, and then the Shakedown Letter asking for $1,200 which I will kindly accept $500 because I am in a charitable mood. Of course, I have to include the customary FAQ in case you have any issues with what we sent.
How does that sound to you? :-)
Matthew - Thanks for the pep talk and for everything you do here. I am going to at least give it one more try on my own using all that I am learning here. So, if I use some text from one of your letters you won't site me for copyright infringement? ;D
-
Before you use my text, let me first go register my letter with the copyright agency (after the fact). That way I have better standing when I send you the ELI Extortion Letter.
The ELI Extortion Letter is the one where we suck in people to read the multiple letters I have written to various lawyers, agencies, etc. and "seeded" into Scribd. Then, when you incorporate the text I originally wrote into your own letters, you will then receive a screenshot of the Scribd document, the "after-the-fact" copyright registration, and then the Shakedown Letter asking for $1,200 which I will kindly accept $500 because I am in a charitable mood. Of course, I have to include the customary FAQ in case you have any issues with what we sent.
How does that sound to you? :-)
Matthew - Thanks for the pep talk and for everything you do here. I am going to at least give it one more try on my own using all that I am learning here. So, if I use some text from one of your letters you won't site me for copyright infringement? ;D
Sounds like a well thought out and executed search engine friendly post to me!