ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: Extortion-Victim-No Longer on November 15, 2011, 03:34:54 PM
-
Hold the fishing line, wait for the infringer of a successful looking commercial website takes a bite, under the false pretence that the image was free to use, as advertised, only to be later slapped by the inevitable pre-stamped settlement demand letter.
Business model = Multiple Free Wallpaper Sites + Multiple Settlement Demand letters
photographer
H. A. N. or any other like entity (register the bait)
Software like P. S.
Lawyers
Someone who is hidden behind domain privacy to "seed" the images on free wallpaper sites?
From what I researched before I found ELI...most people are scared and pay...Just 5 successful demand letters per month would generate $ 50,000 at $ 10,000 per image, that is large revenue. Unlike the old days when earnings were a percentage of $10 bucks for 1 photo! One can only imagine how many scared recipients of settlement demand letters have paid without question and who weren't fortunate enough to come across this incredibly informative website before making an educated decision...
-
This was bound to happen sooner or later.
It's probably been ongoing for a while, too.
Maybe you've heard the saying "Hawaiian Art Plays, Dipshits Pay"? lol.
S.G.
-
LOL...
The H. A. N. curator states their goal for the online Gallery showcases their best artists on one central online site for customers to view & enjoy...yet those unique pieces are somehow popping up all over the net for FREE.
http://travelvacas.com/siga/nford164717thought/
-
You're quite right. Go to the link that "Extortion-Victim-No Longer" provided in a previous post:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://fwallpapers.com/files/images/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fwallpapers.com/view/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii&usg=__G2huN_098plvFFevENfvF1yejXQ=&h=1200&w=1600&sz=662&hl=en&start=84&zoom=1&tbnid=dhcZY3kpBMATnM:&tbnh=158&tbnw=204&ei=zzKwTYTxJYrSsAPD0JTlCw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhawaii%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1659%26bih%3D841%26tbm%3Disch0%2C2140&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=936&vpy=327&dur=3308&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=98&ty=109&page=4&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:84&biw=1659&bih=841
Download the picture. Now go to Google, click on "Images", click on the little camera icon next to the search box, click on "upload image", browse to the image that you downloaded and click "open".
Next scroll down to "Pages that include matching images", look at the listed pages.
The photo appears on more than 89 "FREE" wallpaper sites on the first 26 Google search pages alone.
Many will recall that the image in question was the subject of the infamous "Brandon Sand" extortion letter, seeking an astonishing $10,000.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/brandon-sand-extortion-web.pdf
I'd say that Hawaiian Art Network and photographer Tylor have a credibility problem.
S.G.
-
For what it is worth, I am not much of a conspiracy theory type of guy. I don't necessarily see shadows around every corner. Because I put my name and face out for all to see, I am very careful but who I associate with, what I say, and what I believe.
However, this whole free wallpaper thing with a certain H.A.N. artist definitely has my attention. I have been gathering information on the side from various people and there appears to be a pattern I am seeing. And it is not a pretty one.
I don't know when, where, or how but let's just say this topic is far from dead and will likely be the subject of further discussion down the road.
What I would say to all of you is to continue investigating and gather information here. It will come together.
Matthew
-
Business model = Multiple Free Wallpaper Sites + Multiple Settlement Demand letters
photographer
H. A. N. or any other like entity (register the bait)
Software like P. S.
Lawyers
you left out one small part of the equation...
photographer
H.A.N.
C.S.I - owned by the same person as H.A.N.
software like P.S.
lawyers
-
That's what I meant by register the bait... :D
-
Hello Everyone
I just got hit with a lawsuit from Tylor and HAN.
I had no idea we even used the image and traced it back to a hard disk in the office and that found that it was downloaded from one of the 150 or so free wallpaper sites and used by one of our students. I explained this to then lawyer, took the students web site down the minute I got the letter, but he still wants over 4000 USD. The site made no profit as he claims and we never of course took trade mark images off the picture which he accuses me of as well.. It took quite a bit of digging but I found where it came from. Yes a free download wallpaper site.
As soon as I get a chance I will give more info and hopefully find a way to get everyone together to counter this. I am looking for an attorney who will go after this and willing to pay for the depositions and get all HAN records to see if this is a scam etc now or legitimate.
The attorney in my case apparently has a good reputation in town so I am surprised he attaches his name to this. As I have a feeling it will get very nasty as I smell a really stinky fish here.
Any advice ?
M
-
My advice would be to research, find and document every free wallpaper site this image appears on, also reference other sources such as the following to document "the business model"
http://www.picscout.com/customers/case-studies.html
I would also try to rally the troops that visit this and other sites that have received a letter (or suit), as I believe there is strenght in numbers. You also might want to collect screen shots of the image directly from the artists site where he sells 4 x 6 prints for under $10.00 including shipping!
In my opinion this is not just a case of copyright infringement, but I also think it borders on entrapment /fraud, we just need a judge to see it that way, which would also help in regards to other companies that are also vigorously chasing down small businesses, which I believe the majority are innocent infringers.
-
These trolls have to file some lawsuits in order to keep the "fear level" at a maximum.
Otherwise, many wouldn't pay.
However, I really wonder if they'd actually be willing to take it as far as court, or simply back out at the last moment.
These particular images have been posted on hundreds of "free" sites, some even with a button/code enabling visitors to place the image their site instantly.
One could raise the question of why Tylor/H.A.N aren't going after the channels of "free distribution", but rather the end user(s).
A more logical (ethical?) approach would be to shut down those distributing said images for free to the masses.
That's how you protect copyrighted materials for the purpose of making revenue.
I think that going to court would really be "rolling the dice" for Tylor/H.A.N.
If they lost a case, their trolling business could be largely over and done with immediately.
"Nothing in life is as exhilarating as to be shot at without result" - Winston Churchill
S.G.
-
Well I just got off the phone to HAN latest victim (my opinion) same story--innocent and they were asked for a ton of money (more than you can imagine) for an image that cost 300 ( guess) a year max.. I will allow them to represent themselves on this issue, but allow me to say this may be the tip of an iceberg. I hope many come forward with their stories and we can get to the bottom of this.
I certainly hope all members who can donate ideas, thoughts , or documentation can help with this, my personal time is limited, but I may devote one my employees just to this as the more I hear the more I am taken aback.
I have a feeling this may be big. A real credit to your web site and the case we need to bring attention to the issue.
M
-
One could raise the question of why Tylor/H.A.N aren't going after the channels of "free distribution", but rather the end user(s).
A more logical (ethical?) approach would be to shut down those distributing said images for free to the masses.
That's how you protect copyrighted materials for the purpose of making revenue.
S.G.
This is both logical and ethical, however, IF these images are being seeded to these sites, they would not really be able to go after them, as they supplied it in the first place... ...
" When the shit hits the fan, it will not be distributed evenly"
-
Yes, the fact that they aren't going after the channels of "free distribution" could show their willful intent to "seed" the images under the guise of "public domain"...
It would be pretty easy to convince a judge that it's "innocent infringement" (or less).
Assuming it ever actually made it to court. lol.
S.G.
-
Just a thought - If the same photographs of Vincent K. Tylor are sold on different stock photo sites, then no individual site could claim to own the exclusive license, and hence they would not have the right to sue.
For example, I found a large collection of his photos here
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=538298
The site conditions appear here
http://photo.net/info/terms-of-use
and section 3 ( Intellectual Property Rights ) shows that by uploading his photos, he gave away many rights!
For example
"You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site. "
Other sites also sell his images
http://www.sunshinearts.net/catalog/Vincent_K_Tylor-184-1.html
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/11626.html
My non legal opinion - only the owner of the copyright or the owner of the exclusive license have the right to sue.
If you can show that more than one image stock site sells the same image, how can any one site claim to own the exclusive license?
-
Good point Scraggy, however most of the sites these images are available on offer free downloads, but it could be argued that the few that do sell the images, including Hawaiian Arts own site are in deed stepping on each other. I also think a judge would take into consideration the fact that his images on the HAN site sell for as little as 10.00..
http://www.hawaiiart.com/products/Hawaii-Hammock-Photograph.html
-
Based on this information, my opinion is, if you pay HAN anything you are a sucker.
I understand that they have filed suit in a couple of cases. I guess they feel no one in the lower 48 is going to fly to Hawaii to appear and they will win default judgments. But if it were me, I'd take it to the mat and fight. It seems very likely that HAN would end up paying for my trip to Hawaii.
-
Sorry to bust your bubble, but as I understand it, they would need to file suit where the defendant is located, in the 3 cases I have seen they are all located in the islands and the attorney is also from there as well.. I also notice that this attorney has a good amount of experience behind him, not the usual un-experienced , fresh out of school type.., which has me thinking maybe they use these other lawyers cause they're cheap, hoping to rattle people into just paying and saving on overhead.. there is one letter (not public) that someone from HAN actually sent, they didn't even bother having an attorney send it, perhaps they could find one in that state??
-
Man, I was so ready for that Hawaiian vacation I was already thinking about posting one of these baitpapers on my site.
Okay, no free trip to Hawaii, but I stand by the rest of my statement. I honestly believe that an individual without an attorney could successfully argue and win this case. Seriously. (And yes I know the adage about "A person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
-
I'm with you on this, when you put it all together, Hawaiian Art Network, Artist, Copyright Services International ( or whatever it's called, which just happened to be owned by the same owner as HAN itself), free wall paper sites by the dozen, several sites "selling" the same images, asking for 1000.00 or more for said images, when the photogrpaher himself sells the images for as low as $10.00 INCLUDING shipping!!, I really think they could be in a heap of trouble..
-
Righthaven has shown us how judges have a disdain for using abusing the court system and legal process especially when there appears to be a pattern of behavior the law never intended.
Vincent Tylor's wallpapers and HAN's "partnership" involvement perpetuates this abuse. I am entirely convinced given enough research and assemblage of information being gathered, if a court case were to be presented to a judge, they would show that they are engaged in legalized entrapment.
These free wallpaper images are being pushed out throughout the Internet does not to promote Vincent's work but seems intended for someone to trip up and use that wallpaper as a website image so that an extortion letter can be sent out.
As far as I am concerned, Vincent Tylor's images and HAN's subsequent letter comes up way too frequently for all of this to be a coincidence.
They would do well to pay attention to Righthaven's ongoing verbal spankings by judges. If Vincent Tylor and HAN don't change their ways, they are going to become a victim of their own "success". Karma has a way of catching up to those who intentionally victimize the ignorance of others.
All this is going to be a subject of an upcoming ELI video update discussion.
-
Great! I hope this video touches on some of the things the victims might do. When can they start billing HAN for attorney costs? What steps do they need to take to ensure that they are in the best position to recoup any expenses from HAN? Any thoughts or information why this one photographer's image is at the center of so many letters?
Thanks! I'll be sure to tune in.
-
Any thoughts or information why this one photographer's image is at the center of so many letters?
I have thoughts! If you look at Hawaiin Art Networks site, you'll notice V.K. Tylor is the only photographer offering his images for sale for as little as 10.00, whilst other offer their images starting at around 45.00 and up... Plainly these other photographers have some morals and like to make their money in a more honest fashion.. Vincent K. Tylor on the other hand, knows he can make much more by sending out demand letters, hoping recipients cave into the extortion type threats.
I can't help but wonder if the other artist under HAN umbrella are aware of this?? Perhaps I need to draft an open letter to said artists...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAzj7E1W6wo
-
I think people are having way too much fun with the new Google video creator tool. Very nice.
-
It is....had to do one last one... ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am_y-_i8Cs&hl=en_GB&fs=1
-
Pretty amazing that when you go to youtube and search Hawaiian Art Network that ELI takes the numero Uno spot ABOVE Han's own video!!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hawaiian+art+network
-
EVNL,
That was a nice touch using Google search on the VK Tylor images. I had not done that yet. Very creative and illustrative.
I am beginning to think that the Google video tool is going to get more popular here on ELI. To be honest, I am enjoying the creativity being displayed. We might have to have a contest on the best video. Or maybe dedicate a display wall of the best ELI-related videos. :-)
-
Oh and don't forget to register your new creations, so when these lawyers, etc. copy it to show others and complain about them, you can send them a demand letter too....LOL! I's say $10,000 should be a good starting price!
-
I know it's been brought up before but I googled VKT (His Website) http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/searchresult.aspx?CategoryID=13 to cross reference how many photos of his came up on an another Google image search using 3 words 'Free Hawaiian Wallpapers' & in just a few minutes I found all these variations, all VKT images...watermark removed.
http://wallpapers5.com/wallpaper/Snorkel-Hawaii/
http://www.wallspapa.com/hawaii-wallpaper-1.html
http://www.free-wallpapers-free.com/preview/kauai-hawaii-1/
http://free-photo-download.info/free-photo-downloads/flowers-bird_of_paradise,_hawaii_picture.html
http://www.ibackgroundz.com/-maui-hawaii-free-nature-wallpaper-image-featuring-beaches-and-coasts/wallpapers-free.co.uk*backgrounds*nature*beaches_and_coasts*Alau-Island-Sunrise-Maui-Hawaii.jpg/
http://www.freewallpapers.me/wallpaper/Waikiki-Oahu-Hawaii/
http://widescreenwallpapers.org/surfer-at-twilight-hawaii-wallpapers.html
http://www.webwallpapers.net/05/123-hawaii-wallpaper/road_to_hana_turquoise_lagoon_maui_hawaii/
-
I was a bit curious about this theory of the artist "seeding" photos. It seems a little implausible that the artist would be seeding overtly. That is: I would be surprised if a photographer is visiting a wallpaper site and uploading his images himself.
Being familiar with the web, I think it's worth looking into ways that a photographer might inadvertently be contributing to the problem. I googled around a bit and found some possible paths (and other info.) So here goes:
Possible way path for Photographers wallpapers to appear at zillions of wall paper sites.
1) http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/SiteMap.htm appears to be VK Tylor's site.
2) Hawaiian photos' site map links to webshots page with VKTylor images.
Web cite capture of site map on Jan 10, 2012 http://www.webcitation.org/64ai2bj4N (http://www.webcitation.org/64ai2bj4N)
3) Road to Hana Turquoise Lagoon appears at Webshots
http://www.webcitation.org/64aiKdzpz (http://www.webcitation.org/64aiKdzpz) (thumbnail)
http://www.webcitation.org/64aiTIGO6 (http://www.webcitation.org/64aiTIGO6) (Large-- but webcite may be blocked from seeing whole page. At least today, you can see the page I tried to archive: http://www.webshots.com/pro/photo/3158973?navtype=search (http://www.webshots.com/pro/photo/3158973?navtype=search) Webshots appears to display the "hover" image but that's blanked out for webcite. Click the pretty lagoon picture to see similarity between Webshots page and archived page.)
4) Even on the partial archive, you can see that webshots makes wallpapers downloadable. The price is fairly low-- one gets a monthly membership.
https://subs.webshots.com/reg/comparison?res=high&photos=3158973&done=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webshots.com%2Fpro%2Fphoto%2F3158973%26path%3D%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui&path=%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui%3Fexp%3Dphoto_page&vhost=www&collection=Travel+-+Mauihttps://subs.webshots.com/reg/comparison?res=high&photos=3158973&done=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webshots.com%2Fpro%2Fphoto%2F3158973%26path%3D%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui&path=%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui%3Fexp%3Dphoto_page&vhost=www&collection=Travel+-+Maui (https://subs.webshots.com/reg/comparison?res=high&photos=3158973&done=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webshots.com%2Fpro%2Fphoto%2F3158973%26path%3D%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui&path=%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui%3Fexp%3Dphoto_page&vhost=www&collection=Travel+-+Mauihttps://subs.webshots.com/reg/comparison?res=high&photos=3158973&done=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webshots.com%2Fpro%2Fphoto%2F3158973%26path%3D%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui&path=%2Ftravel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-maui%3Fexp%3Dphoto_page&vhost=www&collection=Travel+-+Maui)
http://www.webcitation.org/64alEDRWa (http://www.webcitation.org/64alEDRWa)
Note: Platinum membership-- the top of the line is $39.99 a year, which is low enough that anyone profiting from a free wallpaper site would pay it. You can also get a free 1 day membership. Possibly those running free wallpaper sites would figure out a way to join using disposable email addresses but I wasn't going to try test that out.
5) Webshots copyright is archived here:
http://www.webcitation.org/64aiwTYIg (http://www.webcitation.org/64aiwTYIg)
It grants limited rights-- certainly if those running the free wallpaper sites have not been granted licenses through Webshots.
==== Digression.
Up to this point in my investigation, my tentative notion is that it's possible for someone running a free wallpaper site to obtain images very cheaply from Webshots. (Or failing that, some anonymous person might obtain the images and uploads to a free wallpaper site. Each wallpaper site operates differently and some may pay uploaders a few pennies for each download thereby encouraging uploaders to do the grunt work of creating content.)
If it's done this way, then the photographer might not be intentionally "seeding" his image.
However, the images copying is rampant, and by now, one would imagine any photographer who has been suing numerous people must know that the images are all over the web. He may not know how his wallpaper images are getting to these wallpaper sites. But it appears to me that what I've describe represents at least one path for many of his images to appear at free wallpaper sites. I also think it's relatively obvious: Wallpaper sites are getting his images from the Webshots, which sells the image cheap!
===== Since HAN is involved, I think it's worth closing the circle and showing these:
6) HAN displays similar image. As far as I can tell, they make these available as print only.
http://www.hawaiiart.com/products/Turquoise-Lagoon-Photograph.html
http://www.webcitation.org/64akVcPDi
7) HAN's Copyright terms for buyers are seem largely similar to Webshots
http://www.webcitation.org/64akOZTGZ
Those who buy images from HAN don't have a right to display on the web, resell & etc. But-- as I noted-- at least looking at the images I linked above, I only saw prints for sale. (Moreover, as a potential customer, I'd assume HAN's restrictions don't prevent someone who bought the image at Webshots from using it the way Webshots license allows.)
However, I don't have access to the terms for Artists. So, I don't have anything that indicates whether HAN has exclusive rights for distribution on the web.
8) Looking around HAN, I have not found any method for someone to download wallpapers. So, I think the path to free wallpaper sites is likely not HAN. (And they may not be aware that some of the images they sell are also sold as wallpapers with the authorization of the photographer through Webshots.)
Anyway: For the time being, my operating theory are
- The photographer Tylor loads them to Webshots in the hopes of making a little money. (Perfectly justifyable.)
- Webshots makes these available at a price that is somewhat reasonable for digital wallpaper. (In fact, that price may only be attractive to people who steal it and resell, making money by selling advertising or collecting email addresses to resell to spammers.)
- Quite a few Wallpaper places (group A) get the images from Webshots representing them as free.
- Then "party B" looking to create a site downloads from the free wallpaper site an use the image. Then HAN and Tylor sue Party B.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how a judge would react to demands for large settlements from the photographer or his agent in the hypothetical circumstance where one or the other knows the photographer makes images available through Webshots, knows Webshots makes high resolutions images easily available and likely knows or ought to know third parties (group A) are representing these images as free and the ones being asked for large damages (i.e. party B) are the coming across these images hosted by someone in "group A".
But I think the fact that this path exists is something an attorney might want to know about so he could decide whether it's important to his fact pattern.
Also: If I were HAN, and my business model was to sell photographs, I would insist my artists not make their images available as wallpaper through Webshots. Even though HAN is suing for web display, it's pretty obvious that anyone who wants a nice, high resolution print image of "Road to Hana" can just download it from Webshots or a wallpaper site, print them on nice paper, display them at home and never get caught.
-
Whether or not Tylor deliberately seeded his photos is unknown.
I think that PicScout would have picked up on Tylor's images on the wallpaper sites by now.
So, it's reasonable to assume that he's aware that his photos are been offered as "free".
The story of how they got on the free wallpaper sites might be interesting.
But the fact that they're offered for free on those sites, and remain there as "free" is the most important aspect of the story.
If I was taken to task for infringing on Tylor/H.A.N. photos, I'd demand to see paperwork to prove that they're making meaningful efforts to curtail these images being marketed as free.
I'd want this as part of the discovery process to assess the actual market value of these images.
If it's distributed as "free" anywhere, then it's surely not "premium rights managed content".
No rights are managed if the images are a free download.
How many sites do these photos have to be on before we say, "this is deliberate", or "he's doing nothing about it because it entices people to infringe intentionally"?
S.G.
-
Furthermore if HAN and Tylor do know about these free sites, why are going after the small fish for having downloaded 1 or 2 images, when they could sets their sites on the wall paper sites, some of which have many of his images posted, wouldn't that be a better revenue stream for them? I would think so..but then again by targeting small mom + pop outfits with the fear factor, they probably get better results with people just flopping over and writing checks..
and I still question why none of the other photographers associated with HAN seem to have this "problem", maybe they are not seeding or uploading to webshots....
SG has some very good points, show me where it is documented that you are doing everything in your power to have the "free" images removed, cause if they aren't then they are just part of the problem and guilty by association...just my 2 cents worth...
-
Whether or not Tylor deliberately seeded his photos is unknown.
I think that PicScout would have picked up on Tylor's images on the wallpaper sites by now.
So, it's reasonable to assume that he's aware that his photos are been offered as "free".
Maybe. Oddly enough, the video someone posted discussing how picscout operates suggests they might miss images if they are hosted in countries with weak copyright laws. Lots of the free wallpaper sites have addresses ending in things like ".ru", and checking domain tools indicates that many are hosted outside the US, Europe etc. So, picscout may not pick these up.
But I think what picscout might or might not find is irrelevant.
If I were on a jury, I would judge it highly implausible that HAN or Tylor have not known these images are massively reproduced at wallpaper sites. After all, given that they've sent out letters, it's not widely implausible that either HAN or Tylor has avoided looking for his images at google. In fact, if they claimed not to know they images were widely copied, I would consider this evidence that they were less than truthful.
The story of how they got on the free wallpaper sites might be interesting.
But the fact that they're offered for free on those sites, and remain there as "free" is the most important aspect of the story.
I agree that the fact that they remain free when it is impossible to believe that HAN and the photographer don't know they are there is important. But I disagree that how the images got on the sites would be unimportant if this were presented in a trial or if these were presented in newspapers stories. It's also not irrelevant to what lawmakers might ultimately do with respect to modifying copyright laws, which they do from time to time.
I suspect that the possibility the images are getting on wallpaper sites as a result of an active choice on the part of the photographer (i.e. he posts them on Webshots) and that HAN doesn't do much to prevent photographers from posting in venues that as a practical matter assure high resolution images will appear on these sites might weigh heavily against the photographer and HAN. It might not matter in proving copyright violation, but maybe it would matter when assessing damages and awards.
If the latter is true, then it's useful for a defendant to identify a path from photographer's site to free wallpaper sites. Because, otherwise, in discovery, the defendant or his lawyers would ask Tylor if he posted his images at free wallpaper sites. The answer would be no. This would likely be the absolute truth. Then, they'd ask if he knows how they got there. He's say no. This might also be the truth. Technically, if they got there the way I think, he doesn't know how they go there. He might not even suspect how they go there! Are those the only "facts" you want to present a jury or judge? I would think explaining how they likely go there would be useful in a civil trial.
If I was taken to task for infringing on Tylor/H.A.N. photos, I'd demand to see paperwork to prove that they're making meaningful efforts to curtail these images being marketed as free.
I'd want this as part of the discovery process to assess the actual market value of these images.
If it's distributed as "free" anywhere, then it's surely not "premium rights managed content".
No rights are managed if the images are a free download.
First: I see a couple problems here. I agree you should ask to see these things. I would.
But if HAN takes you to court, the question isn't going to be whether you, SG, are satisfied with their paperwork. The question is going to be whether a judge or jury are satisfied. So I think you need to put your devils advocate hat and think about how a third party who is not angry with HAN, getty etc would interpret actual copyright law.
I'm not a lawyer; I have no idea whether HAN or the photographer are required to try to prevent people in Russia (.ru) from running free wallpaper sites.
I'm also not sure you are entirely right about the meaning of exclusive license. I think Joe can be granted the exclusive right to make prints for framing, Sheila can be granted the exclusive right to display on the web and Fred can be granted exclusive rights to print on clothing etc. If so, the fact that party A might have an exclusive right to make prints and party B might have the exclusive right to sell licenses to display images on the web.
Right now, it's still possible HAN has an exclusive right. We don't know. Mind you-- history suggests they might very well not have an exclusive right. But we don't actually know.
But I agree with you that I would want to read the license agreement to learn whether HAN has an exclusive right to license to display on the web and also to discover how much anyone paid to display these images on the web. I have no idea whether HAN has an exclusive license to permit people to display on the web. I strongly suspect no one has every paid anything for that right to display those Hawaii images and no one would pay anywhere near the amount HAN is demanding.
I think HAN only sells prints for a reason. The likely reason is that the prints do have monetary value. Web display may have nearly none.
I'd also look to the fact that others not involved in the HAN suit-- Webshots-- sell downloaded images.
How many sites do these photos have to be on before we say, "this is deliberate", or "he's doing nothing about it because it entices people to infringe intentionally"?
S.G.
I don't know. I'm not sure the numerical count is relevant. I'd look to other factors-- like the fact that he has made the decision to let Webshots permit digital downloads. While this is not the same as deciding to let people infringe intentionally, as a practical matter, it is very difficult for anyone to both profit by supplying wallpaper downloads for a fee and also profit by permitting exclusive licenses to display images. (That is: Unless the plan is to profit by suing those who display.)
Anyway, I don't disagree with you. If I were on a jury, given evidence showing the widespread copying, noticing not only that
a) neither HAN nor the photographer were taking steps to prevent high quality digital images from being promoted but
b) the photographer was taking steps to make high resolution digital images available for download and
c) I saw how vigilantly HAN and the photographer went after small infringers,
I would be inclined to take a dim view of HAN or the photographer.
But that doesn't mean that I would deem failure to sue someone in Russia as a factor that puts the images in the open domain. So I would not automatically find no infringement if otherwise, there was evidence of infringement. Instead, I might read the law to determine the minimum possible monetary penalty I could assess. My impression is that in the event this particular image is registered, and it turns out HAN and the photographer has all their paper work in place (which they may not) and so on, the minimum will be $200 with no attorneys fee. The demand letters highlight the maximum-- but courts can give the minimum.
-
Furthermore if HAN and Tylor do know about these free sites, why are going after the small fish for having downloaded 1 or 2 images, when they could sets their sites on the wall paper sites, some of which have many of his images posted, wouldn't that be a better revenue stream for them? I would think so..but then again by targeting small mom + pop outfits with the fear factor, they probably get better results with people just flopping over and writing checks..
As a practical matter, many of the wallpaper sites are out of the reach of copyright law. Those with .ru domains, or even with .com domains but hosted in russia, poland, cz, china etc are going to be impossible to sue.
and I still question why none of the other photographers associated with HAN seem to have this "problem", maybe they are not seeding or uploading to webshots....
You could look. I suspect this will turn out to be the case. I think if HAN wants to be legit, they should insist their artists not make extra on the side by uploading to Webshots.
SG has some very good points, show me where it is documented that you are doing everything in your power to have the "free" images removed, cause if they aren't then they are just part of the problem and guilty by association...just my 2 cents worth...
I think many judges would look kindly on the counter argument that you win or enforce a suit against the Chinese, koreans, or many of these other places.
-
Whether HAN or someone associated with HAN seeded the images, if HAN knew about their images being plastered all over free sites like this and did nothing to enforce their copyrights, while a court may still find that a user infringed, the damages awarded would likely go way down. Courts can take into consideration whether a copyright holder has selectively enforced his rights or allowed his works to be used without reproach in determining how much to award.
-
A good discussion, and many good points made.
I'd like to add that there is a discovery process.
The impression given by the trolls is that "we'll take you to court, but we don't have to reveal anything" is a falsehood.
There IS a discovery process. Even if it's delayed until the mediation conference that's normally a last resort before a trial.
Both sides can also make requests for documentation of claims made, etc.
"I don't know" and "I can't do anything about it" simply means that the author has in effect lost "control" of copyrighted material.
Regardless of the country, the author should be able to show that he/she has at least sent cease and desist letters.
Even Russia and China have a legal system. If the images are very valuable, the author should be able to show some efforts to stem the tide of infringements.
Going up against HAN, I'd have evidence of the dissemination of the content for free, all over the world.
If Tylor makes the claim, "I didn't know about it", score one for me... he looks negligent, or worse still compliant.
That's an extremely weak position to be in.
There needn't be a copyright infringement case decided or pending against one of the free wallpaper sites in order to use those facts against Tylor.
The fact they they exist is sufficient to make him look bad.
Actual court cases in last ten years show that the ones that have even minor weaknesses get dismissed.
The cases have to be pretty rock-solid in order for the plaintiff to prevail in a meaningful way.
I'm not angry with HAN or Getty, and have had no dealings with them, BTW.
My posts here are only to encourage people to fight.
I'm one of those people who can fight (and win) with one or two solid arguments. That's all you really need.
I'm not normally dissuaded by not having every piece of the puzzle, or by being thrown off by an adversary's "plausible denial".
That's because the plaintiff has to reveal those pieces before using them in court, and a plausible denial just "proves" lack of knowledge or lack of evidence and those are worthless.
For example, Country Cycling could have won based on the fact that the contract with the photographer was never dated.
Copyright standing, the length of use, price and anything else probably wouldn't have made a difference.
I think that these sorts of things are normally decided by a judge who has some experience in the area.
I don't think that there's a jury of peers. But, maybe Oscar can chime in if I'm mistaken.
S.G.
-
S.D.
Just so I know which people are which, are you an attorney? I'm not. I try to mention that. Also, when you say you encourage people to fight: Are you someone who got a letter? I got a Getty Letter. So, for my case, I think I need to weigh the potential up side and downside when making decisions and I try to assume others who got letters need to do the same.
Even as a non-attorney, I agree with you that to prevail, the defendant only needs one important thing to be wrong with the plaintiffs claim. But the big risk for a potential defendant is paying a good lawyer to defend them is costly in actual money and doing all the work themselves is costs time and is risky because an inexperienced defendant is likely to overlook something important.
Each letter recipient needs or wants to make some decisions before they are sued. So everyone who gets a letter has to weigh all the "what ifs" pre-discovery.
-
Oscar--
Thanks for jumping in! If I understand correctly, you are saying all these appearances all over the world can affect the size of the award. However, they are not factors in determining whether or not copyright occurred. Am I correctly interpreting you?
-
I think thats what he is trying to say, yes it would / could lower any award amount, but copyright infringement could still have happened. I tend to think or hope anyway that most judges are reasonable and would use common sense in their final decisions.. Showing a judge one of these wallpaper sites that have a creative commons license attached ( and there is at least one that I've seen ) would likely deter a judge from finding that infringement did occur..at least thats how I see it, but I could be being overly optimistic..
-
As a practical matter, many of the wallpaper sites are out of the reach of copyright law. Those with .ru domains, or even with .com domains but hosted in russia, poland, cz, china etc are going to be impossible to sue.
Looking at the sites listed in reply 28 above, most are registered with GODADDY, if I interpreted the whois search correctly.
from:
http://www.pixel2life.com/forums/index.php?/topic/20185-dmca-action-a-general-guide-to-taking-action-against-site-rippers-using-dmca-law/
"Step 4 - If you have still not received any action from either party, your final action is to try and get in touch with the Registrar. Send them a letter explaining your situation and be sure to attach your DMCA notice. Registrars like Godaddy will take immediate action, however smaller companies may prove difficult to work with."
Regarding people who have their copyrighted material showing up on GODADDY registered domains for lengthy periods, I have to wonder how hard (or if at all) they have tried to have it removed.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but I find it very peculiar that for a photographer to have so much online presence, he has not made a public statement or commentary of any kind regarding the overwhelming presence his images appear to have.
If he were to come out and make a strong statement that these images so prevalent on the Internet was NOT authorized or seeded by him, I think it would help his case a lot. But his silence is both deafening and strange.
I know we should not presume guilt on his part simply because of his silence but I cannot believe that he is unaware that he, his images, and the suspicions behind the wallpaper sites are actively being discussed.
If it were me, I would write an open comment or open letter for all to read.
-
Lettered--
Good catch! I stand corrected. I saw all the .ru and .pl etc. as I skimmed ,but I admit I never counted. GoDaddy? They should be enforcing that!
-
S.D.
Just so I know which people are which, are you an attorney? I'm not. I try to mention that. Also, when you say you encourage people to fight: Are you someone who got a letter? I got a Getty Letter. So, for my case, I think I need to weigh the potential up side and downside when making decisions and I try to assume others who got letters need to do the same.
Soylent states that he has had "no dealings with HAN or Getty".
I'm not angry with HAN or Getty, and have had no dealings with them, BTW.
My posts here are only to encourage people to fight.
He does however seem to have strong feelings regarding "Masterfile".
Trying to stop publication of these extortion letters and related issues are a waste of time on the part of the copyright trolls.
They have no power to suppress anything outside of a confidentiality agreement.
I am enjoying every bit of the butthurt though.
I found a photo of Geoffrey Beal "cooking up" some of the usual diarrhea spewed by the corporate septic tank that is "Masterfile".
S.G.
;D
All discussions are appreciated here on a personal level. It is wise to weigh the scales on all levels. Also I find it wise to be prepared that in the case that you should become the "sacrificial lamb" and find yourself at the edge of the fiery volcano, you should be as fully prepared as possible. It has been pointed out by Soylent before that some will be sacrificed in order to keep the "fear factor" elevated.
Keep the lines open on all sides. This is a great discussion.
-
would likely deter a judge from finding that infringement did occur..at least that's how I see it, but I could be being overly optimistic..
Why would this affect the judge's judgement on whether or not infringement occurred?
I'm asking. I make a rule of avoiding rhetorical questions on blogs and forums because they just result in confusion. Also: I'm not a lawyer so I have no specific experience. My impression has always been that generally speaking the judge would not consider the infringements all over the place when assessing whether or not copyright violation occurred but would only affect the size of the award and the likelihood the judge would require the defendant to pay the plaintiffs court costs and attorney's fees. (The exception where failure to enforce copyright might affect the judges determination of the fact of copyright might arise if the defense is the copying falls under fair use. )
-
would likely deter a judge from finding that infringement did occur..at least that's how I see it, but I could be being overly optimistic..
Why would this affect the judge's judgement on whether or not infringement occurred?
I'm asking. I make a rule of avoiding rhetorical questions on blogs and forums because they just result in confusion. Also: I'm not a lawyer so I have no specific experience. My impression has always been that generally speaking the judge would not consider the infringements all over the place when assessing whether or not copyright violation occurred but would only affect the size of the award and the likelihood the judge would require the defendant to pay the plaintiffs court costs and attorney's fees. (The exception where failure to enforce copyright might affect the judges determination of the fact of copyright might arise if the defense is the copying falls under fair use. )
Lucia,
Perhaps the presence of the material on free wallpaper sites with the knowledge and inaction of the owner could be the foundation for an "implied license" defense (thus no infringement)?
btw I'm not a lawyer either.
Field v. Google
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15945714264866823005&q=field+v.+google&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1
" Consent to use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred based on silence where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it."
-
If they were not able to show they were taking steps to rectify the issue, this could certainly be used IMHO
-
Lettered--
I read the Field v. Google case. I think the analogy is imperfect. Here's why:
I the Field v. Google case, the facts as I understand them is that Field is the plaintiff and Google is the specific defendant. There is no intermediary. The facts indicate that Field knew exactly how the Google bot behaved, knew exactly how to instruct it not to cache and specifically uploaded with the intention that the 'bot would visit and cache the copyrighted content. Then, he sued Google.
So it makes some sense to suggest that Field intended the Googlebot to visit and google to cache. In fact, that appears to have been his main reason for posting.
With regard to the Tylor thing, the chain is much more diffuse. Presumably at least initially, Tylors intention in uploading to Webshots is to make a little money when people download images. He would likely at least claim this. But if my notions of how this propagates to Wallpaper sites is correct, after he uploads, multiple their parties who are not Webshots get involved copying and uploading to wallpaper sites. Ultimately, the person HAN sent a letter to copied, and posted the stuff online.
It seems to me whether Tylor granted an implied license to either the Wallpaper site or the person Han is now sending demands to is arguable. I suppose if this gets to court, the argument will be presented. (I think defendant would likely present this evidence and advance an argument.)
But it's not clear to me that the Field v. Google case would compel any judge to rule that Tylor has granted the defendant an implied license. (That's not to say the judge might not so rule, I just don't see that the analogy as very strong.)
-
It could be the judge could see it that Tylor knew his images were going on the wallpaper site ( however they got there) but if he did nothing, nor could he show that he at least tried to take action..in other words he just wrote it off as shit happens...then a judge could certainly rule that there was an implied license..either way it can't hurt to have this as part of your defense.
-
Pick any 12 of the more popular "Tylor" photos.
Use Google reverse-image search on each photo.
Find nearly 1000 unique impressions of the photos combined on "free wallpaper" sites worldwide.
Take screen shots. Print-out screen shots single-sided.
Pile is 2-and-a-half inches thick.
File for summary dismissal and submit pile of papers documenting the scam
Profit?
S.G.
-
Pick any 12 of the more popular "Tylor" photos.
Use Google reverse-image search on each photo.
Find nearly 1000 unique impressions of the photos combined on "free wallpaper" sites worldwide.
Take screen shots. Print-out screen shots single-sided.
Pile is 2-and-a-half inches thick.
File for summary dismissal and submit pile of papers documenting the scam
Profit?
S.G.
Soylent, you had me at "hello".
;D
-
Well said...
-
File for summary dismissal and submit pile of papers documenting the scam
Profit?
S.G.
Are you merely suggesting it's worth a shot? Or are you an experienced attorney saying you believe you would have a high probability of winning the summary dismissal?
If the latter, could you tell us cases where this worked? Because that's what a person gauging whether or not they are going to implement your plan would need to know before following your suggestion.
-
Lucia, are you dealing with a massive amount of images?
-
You mean in my getty letter? Nope. The getty image letter I got discusses 1 image and that wasn't ever even stored on my server.
-
There has been a lot of speculation about how the HAN images got dispersed on so many free wall paper sites. Nobody's really sure and there is a lot of conjecture flying around.
So I asked them.
Here is the content of my letter:
Hi,
I notice that some of the print photographs you sell are available on free digital wallpaper sites like http://www.webshots.com. It seems like some of your artisans are posting their images on these sites and they are offered "Free" or for a very low download price. The exact terms of these "Wallpaper sites" are vague. But many individuals believe it includes permission to use these images on their own web site. This has resulted in several recent "Demand Letters" issued by Hawaiian Art Network for copyright infringement.
Although I am a strong advocate for copyright, this situation has led to a great deal of confusion in the marketplace. Are you aware of this situation? Are your artists at liberty to distribute their images through other outlets? Has H.A.N. contacted these sites and asked them to stop providing these image?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jerry Witt
I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply the very next day. The position of HAN tracks with what has been said here. They say they HAVE issued takedown notices (hundreds), but many in the Eastern European sites don't respond. They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.
I invited the representative of HAN to join the discussion here and I hope he takes up the offer.
-
They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.
I don't think anything that would be described as "hacking" hacking is required.
Someone whose compute skillzzzz are close to zero could get the images cheaply and easily through Webshots, capture the images, and upload them to a wallpaper site.
Someone could probably demonstrate this by getting an image from webshots (whenever someone has the time. I'm finishing up a wordpress plugin to thwart 'bots this week.)
Without stating any view about HAN's situation with regard to past letters, in my opinion, at least going forward, HAN should prohibit their artists from making high resolution images available through places like Webshots or similar. Otherwise, HAN will merely be in the business of working with photographers who behave in a way that guarantees their images will quickly and easily appear on wallpaper sites and who then use HAN to employ picscout, a clerical/legal staff and litigators to pursue the cases in court. At some point, HAN may find judges see through this strategy and either deem the photographers actions and granting a defacto license and not find copyright violations at all, or keep all fines to the statutory minimum. In both cases, HAN would be losing a lot of money.
-
There has been a lot of speculation about how the HAN images got dispersed on so many free wall paper sites. Nobody's really sure and there is a lot of conjecture flying around.
So I asked them.
Here is the content of my letter:
Hi,
I notice that some of the print photographs you sell are available on free digital wallpaper sites like http://www.webshots.com. It seems like some of your artisans are posting their images on these sites and they are offered "Free" or for a very low download price. The exact terms of these "Wallpaper sites" are vague. But many individuals believe it includes permission to use these images on their own web site. This has resulted in several recent "Demand Letters" issued by Hawaiian Art Network for copyright infringement.
Although I am a strong advocate for copyright, this situation has led to a great deal of confusion in the marketplace. Are you aware of this situation? Are your artists at liberty to distribute their images through other outlets? Has H.A.N. contacted these sites and asked them to stop providing these image?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jerry Witt
I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply the very next day. The position of HAN tracks with what has been said here. They say they HAVE issued takedown notices (hundreds), but many in the Eastern European sites don't respond. They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.
I invited the representative of HAN to join the discussion here and I hope he takes up the offer.
Yep! Since they are AWARE it seems logical to me that they would be a tad more KIND regarding the "extortion" letters!
NOT!
>:(
-
Lucia had inquired about whether or not I'm an attorney. I’m not an attorney.
I had thought at length about how to answer her query as to what my opinion was regarding "where or not it's worth a shot", or "what the probability is of winning a dismissal". Each individual must decide for himself/herself whether or not it's "worth a shot". But, we can do research and make a reasonable determination. Now, if something was to go to court, it's often difficult to predict "probability", as a human "the judge" will make a decision based on aguments/evidence. The following is my thought process. It's a bit long, but perhaps, there's some food for thought in there.
I’m speaking in terms of US laws/ existing precedents.
Historically speaking, most of the people who paid Getty, Riddick and Righthaven didn’t have to.
Corbis had a good case but gained mixed results, and rumor has it that Masterfile is much better organized than Getty when it comes to contracts/registrations. I’m a bit unclear on the Masterfile thing. They may only be filing lawsuits wherein the paperwork is in place; this may give the false impression that everything that they have is registered/under proper contracts. Most of their wins are on “default” wherein the defendant didn’t show for court.
So, the odds are good that there’s some problem with most infringement claims that should be explored and could possibly be exploited.
---
Your priority in fighting such claims might be as follows from most desirable to least:
1) Make an informal response, and show evidence that causes them to simply go away
2) Make an informal response, and show evidence that causes them to accept a very low settlement. One so low that the time you saved is more valuable than that of the settlement.
3) In the event of a lawsuit, file a formal defense that causes the plaintiff to give up and withdraw
4) In the event of a strong defense, fight it in court, win, and collect legal fees and other damages
5) In a case wherein you cannot reasonably prevail, pay a the lowest settlement possible in lieu of a larger court loss and legal fees.
---
Fighting these claims is a process. Collect evidence and find out if there’s a fatal problem with the claim such as:
1) The content was never registered
2) Faulty registration (dates missing, signatures missing, incorrect names)
3) The content was registered by the “original artist”, but there is no “exclusive agreement” in place between the artist and company (agent). Or this agreement is faulty.
4) The registration was made in “bulk”, that is, many items registered together as a collection
5) Registration not made within lawful time limits
The above examples will kill a case in the US. That doesn’t stop ignorant people from filing lawsuits in some cases. File for “summary dismissal” and site precedents. If it does go to court, at least you’ll win and collect your legal fees if applicable. Except in “scorched earth” near-criminal situations such as Righthaven. Note that court precedents currently exist for the above list.
---
Other fatal problems. These are situations involving mistakes or even fraud which make even the possibility of a claim invalid:
1) Outright fraudulent claims (the image didn’t even appear on your site, or the image only similar and not the same).
2) Companies or individuals impersonating artists/ agencies/ companies/ lawyers and sending forged correspondence/fraudulent claims.
3) Misrepresentations of law, for example situations wherein Getty makes accusations of infringement over linked images not actually residing on the server/domain of the accused person/company.
---
Things that might kill or at least give leverage in negotiations or reduce awards in court
1) The images are widely available as “free” (the more the better for the defendant)
2) The images are widely available as low-cost “clip-art” (non rights-managed)
3) The infringement had low exposure (hit count), low resolution, small image size, was on tertiary web pages.
4) The same images sold on multiple sites by unrelated companies
5) Only some rights assigned (but not others) in an “exclusive contract” between an artist and agent.
6) It was “fair use” under the law for registered educational/non-profit organizations.
7) The web site was not commercial, or didn’t make much money.
8 The defendant was unemployed or unemployable, and the web site didn’t make much revenue
---
Things that people do to avoid payment/court in a worst-case scenario:
1) In the case of a corporation, ensure that the company has little assets left by the time collection efforts are made.
2) Personal bankruptcy
3) “Disappear” in order to avoid service of court papers (somebody did that in a Corbis case).
---
Where to begin? Here’s what you do:
1) Assess your risk tolerance.
2) Assess your budget
3) Go through the lists above and highlight any points that might apply to your situation
4) Collect all evidence that you can to support what you’ve highlighted
5) Determine if the evidence strongly supports your defence(s)
6) You must now decide if your defence and corresponding evidence support your desired outcome from the very first list.
If your accuser will not provide evidence of their claim, do realize that they’re holding out because they do not have enough evidence to support their claim. Be patient. The accuser must present their evidence before the commencement of any court case. So any evidence will have to be presented eventually. Next, reassess your strategy as you receive any new information.
If new evidence becomes known that isn’t favorable to your defence, keep in mind that you may make a settlement at any time if that’s in your best interest.
S.G.
-
Good job. This "Strategy Guide" should be linked to on the first page under the heading "Help I got a letter! What do I do now?"
-
So I asked them.
I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply the very next day. The position of HAN tracks with what has been said here. They say they HAVE issued takedown notices (hundreds), but many in the Eastern European sites don't respond. They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.
I invited the representative of HAN to join the discussion here and I hope he takes up the offer.
I too am surprised you got an answer, I wonder if we'll get a visit from someone from HAN at some point. You would think that as a good measure / business practice they would cut some slack to the "innocent infringers" that have stumbled upon these images and used them.... As much as I hate to say it, and maybe I'm wrong, but I still think they see this as an easy way to generate revenue, by using extortion like demand letter scare tactics. and this goes for all of the copyright trolls out there, not just Hawaiian Art Network.
-
mcfilms,
I give you credit for going the extra mile to reach out and solicit commentary from them. But I think they have no PR sense. Unfortunately, I feel they really had no choice but to answer in that manner they did for PR purposes. Their credibility is very low as far as I am concerned. Talk is cheap. They have made little or no effort that I can see in getting any other message out other than bragging about how much they have enjoyed their PicScout relationship.
I also question what the motives are for pirates to steal photos only to give them away. Sure, they might get some traffic and visibility but there is overhead to pay for to host all these free images.
If I was a photographer, I would scream bloody murder over this but everyone in the HAN camp and especially VK Tylor is suspiciously quiet about the issue.
Sorry, absent more information, I don't buy it. I am not a conspiracy theory lover but there one response is not enough for me to believe.
Getty Images and Masterfile, for all their faults, continue to have much higher credibility than HAN in my book.
There has been a lot of speculation about how the HAN images got dispersed on so many free wall paper sites. Nobody's really sure and there is a lot of conjecture flying around.
So I asked them.
Here is the content of my letter:
Hi,
I notice that some of the print photographs you sell are available on free digital wallpaper sites like http://www.webshots.com. It seems like some of your artisans are posting their images on these sites and they are offered "Free" or for a very low download price. The exact terms of these "Wallpaper sites" are vague. But many individuals believe it includes permission to use these images on their own web site. This has resulted in several recent "Demand Letters" issued by Hawaiian Art Network for copyright infringement.
Although I am a strong advocate for copyright, this situation has led to a great deal of confusion in the marketplace. Are you aware of this situation? Are your artists at liberty to distribute their images through other outlets? Has H.A.N. contacted these sites and asked them to stop providing these image?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jerry Witt
I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply the very next day. The position of HAN tracks with what has been said here. They say they HAVE issued takedown notices (hundreds), but many in the Eastern European sites don't respond. They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.
I invited the representative of HAN to join the discussion here and I hope he takes up the offer.
-
Issued takedown notices, but have they sent demand letters to the freewallpaper sites?
-
I checked via Google for impressions of Tylor's Road to Hana - Turquoise Lagoon.
I went to the first 7 instances of the photo.
Out of the 7, a WhoIS search showed that two were registered through GoDaddy.
http://www.wallpaperzzz.com/widescreen-river-download/
http://v3wall.com/es/html/pic_down/1600_1200/pic_down_5488_1600_1200.htm
So, just in an informal search, nearly a third resided on domains wherein a DMCA takedown request would work immediately.
I smell scamola here.
S.G.
-
So I asked them.
I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply the very next day. The position of HAN tracks with what has been said here. They say they HAVE issued takedown notices (hundreds), but many in the Eastern European sites don't respond. They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.
I invited the representative of HAN to join the discussion here and I hope he takes up the offer.
I too am surprised you got an answer, I wonder if we'll get a visit from someone from HAN at some point. You would think that as a good measure / business practice they would cut some slack to the "innocent infringers" that have stumbled upon these images and used them.... As much as I hate to say it, and maybe I'm wrong, but I still think they see this as an easy way to generate revenue, by using extortion like demand letter scare tactics. and this goes for all of the copyright trolls out there, not just Hawaiian Art Network.
In my case, the image was from a freewallpapers site. After talking to the lawyer who sent me the "shakedown letter" pleading my case & without resolution, I was made to believe that if I didn't pay the $10,000 within the 30 day deadline, that I would be at risk of being criminally prosecuted which could mean serving up to 5 years in Prison. I was reminded of this by email as well as by phone. I was also reminded that being Canadian would not shield me... Also that my ignorance of copyright law was no defense even though the photo was from the freewallpapers site. (I am self taught on the internet & computers, so the phto was on my website for 2 weeks a 300 pixels by 225 pixels) I now realise how naive I was to believe it was a possibility but I am not an expert of the law & he was, he scared me - a lot. To be honest I was in tears for 2 weeks until I finally got upset enough to start researching & learning about my rights. I came across ELI & Oscar thankfully, then the situation went away pretty fast. But I'll always remember feeling that fear, afraid of being taken away from my son, even spending one day in prison was enough to think about never mind 5 years! I wasn't going to share this part of the story, mostly out of (again) 'fear'...but after reading all these posts, others need to know...BTW...I spoke with HAN twice & in tears explaining that it was an innocent mistake on my part but HAN told me to deal with the assigned lawyer instead. Who then told me pay up or pay the consequences. It was ELI & Oscar, who finally put my mind & nerves to rest. I will always be grateful for that. This whole experience has made me smarter, tougher but also angry, mostly because I really had no idea I couldn't use that photo.
There's a lot more to the story but thought I'd share a little bit...
-
Angry for thinking I would go to jail...over 1 small photo!
-
Extortion-Victim-No Longer, thanks for sharing your experience here.
This is the sort of thing that drives me; fighting the copyright trolls' use of over-the-top tactics, and the human cost of that.
Your case illustrates the lies and the intimidation tactics used.
Sounds like things are better for you now, and I'm sure that I speak for everyone here when I say that I'm glad for that.
S.G.
-
Prison? for 5 years??? they actually threatened you with this??
Just when I thought my respect level for Hawaiian Art Network could go no lower, I read this!
I am literally besides myself!
-
FYI, if it means anything, that lawyer did get some bitter pills along the way.
Extortion-Victim-No Longer, thanks for sharing your experience here.
This is the sort of thing that drives me; fighting the copyright trolls' use of over-the-top tactics, and the human cost of that.
Your case illustrates the lies and the intimidation tactics used.
Sounds like things are better for you now, and I'm sure that I speak for everyone here when I say that I'm glad for that.
S.G.
-
Thanks all, I appreciate your kind remarks! I rushed the story because I wanted to post but was on my way out the door...Honestly, it was the jail time threat that really got to me the most. I had reason to believe its validity when I contacted our region's most sought after & successful patent attorney, who happened to be a friend of my family...When I sent him a copy of the demand letter I received from BS, even he said that given the fact that the image was not mine to use, not even the best lawyer in the world could get me off...
I started this thread because over the period of weeks while this was happening, I felt in my gut that this was a trap for the unknowing website builder like myself. I recall receiving the "shakedown Letter" one day & after reading it, I thought how could this be happening...Seriously? $10,000 dollars for one photo that I presumed was free to use...My husband thought it was spam & told me to ignore it...
But of course I couldn't stop thinking about it so I googled the lawyers name & saw that he existed.
Naturally, I wanted to end the stress so I called him & tried to rationalise that it was an accident & that no infringement had been intended. He was very quick to explain the laws of copyright infringement to me & no matter what I said, at the end of the day, the only thing he wanted me to say was that I would pay. I remember crying on the phone & pleading which got me nowhere...if anything it gave him the confidence to further intimidate & scare me.
The next thing I did was call VKT gallery & ended up on the phone with his wife. I was again in tears fearful of the prison threat...I have never broken the law except for maybe speeding, so the thought of jail was suffocating me inside & out. She told me I wouldn't go to jail, but that it would cost me something & then informed me to contact HAN & ask to speak to the Art Curator. I did, & gave him the same speech, pleading once again. He told me to call BS to deal with him directly...but I had already tried 4 or 5 times over the phone & several times through email only to be reminded that criminal prosecution was hanging over my head. As I mentioned in the earlier post, I was terrified, had nightmares & would find myself in tears even in the garden trying to find peace of mind planting flowers...what have you etc.
At one point I asked BS, where is the humanity in all of this? Here I am, I'm a good person & would never intentionally break any law, would never steal from another, I've made a stupid uneducated mistake of using this photograph for @ 2 weeks & now I am to come up with $10,000 dollars? I don't have that kind of cash on hand! His only response was "The humanity in this is to pay!" Well that is when I started getting angry and chose to fight back. I found ELI & Oscar & just like that my torment was over.
I have to say, at first when I saw their names appear on this awesome forum & how much they didn't like the negative exposure, I was rewarded by a slightly sweet revenge. Felt that they deserved it for what I was put through...but after time passed, I started to feel sorry for him.
I paid him out...I think it was $300...but was it really worth it for him to go after little me for $300 dollars? After all the dedication, time & money$$$ it cost him to get his degree only to have his reputation darkened. I went to Med school for 2 years before leaving it behind to begin an entrepreneur dream with my family. I know how much work & dedication is involved with getting a degree.
But even after the feeling sorry...all I have to do is remember how he spoke to me while I cried telling him how much I love my son & how he needs me & how I can't go to prison. On every call, he clearly did not care but always told me to pay or make a reasonable offer...
I sent him as much proof as I could to prove I couldn't pay them what they were after. He followed with that he would go after my husband who is also on the my website even though he is not administrator or owner as I am, but still liable. Enough time went by without a reply from me while I searched for answers & loopholes that he must have realised I wasn't lying. He finally emailed me & said "even a few hundred dollars is an offer". But by then, he had gone too far & I had already spoken with Oscar & Matthew over the phone. I made a decision to expose what had happened by associating myself with ELI. I wanted the truth & facts to come out, wanted others to have some defence against this sort of attack...I did it because it was the right thing to do.
I do believe many actions deserve a second chance, for a person to feel remorseful & be forgiven. I believe that BS regrets his dealings with me, primarily because of the light it has shed on him but not necessarily for what happened to me. If anything, judging by his personality during the time I dealt with him, if anything he is just as angry & soar over it all. I am sorry that it got this far & that it tarnished his reputation but had he been just a little more humane with me, none of this would have happened.
My website relies on good photos & since this has all happened, I deleted every photo I had thought free to use...5 years of work gone. I was blessed by several key individuals who volunteered me with unlimited use of thousands of photographs & I was able to re-build my website, even better than it was.
So there it is, the whole story & yes I am much better now, better educated too.
-
Thank you again everyone for your kind comments...I feel a big weight off my shoulders! :)
-
EVNL - I now feel like a chump for quaking in my boots over $2310.00. I can empathize with the emotion - I'm still knee deep in my fight and I can't remember the last time I had a decent nights sleep. It's easy for people with more experience to say that our cases are not special and though it does help to view the situation in this regard, it is still a very scary situation to be in. I too have gained a lot of confidence since finding ELI. It is comforting to know that we are not alone in this. Sure, we have to make a stand in our own cases - but we aren't the only one's making a stand.
-
Wow EVNL, thanks for sharing that story.
The weird thing is, when I discuss this issue abstractly with the representative from HAN, their side seems understandable. But then when I hear real-world examples like this I am horrified.
They insist they are trying to prevent infringement. They are opposed to simply sending DMCA takedowns in the event of commercial usages with no compensation to the photographer. Okay, but there is reasonable and then there is EVIL. And trying to squeeze $10,000 out of someone under threat of a 5 year prison sentence for a short-term, innocent infringement, definitely falls in the second camp.
-
Thanks for getting the courage to finally share your story. As you can see, your story is very moving to our readers. I daresay that he caved in very quickly at $300 because he was getting lots of heat. Plus, when you have a young, inexperienced lawyer with minimal track record going up against Oscar, it will not be pretty.
You have the unfortunate distinction of being the one of the first HAN cases ELI heard about. We are glad you found ELI and Oscar to help you.
You did pay a heavy emotional price. But your story will impact and move many people. Many people have shared their stories but yours is probably the most egregious we have heard thus far. Chalk it up to the genius of Hawaiian Art Network's executive management and supreme lawyer-hiring ability.
Thanks all, I appreciate your kind remarks! I rushed the story because I wanted to post but was on my way out the door...Honestly, it was the jail time threat that really got to me the most. I had reason to believe its validity when I contacted our region's most sought after & successful patent attorney, who happened to be a friend of my family...When I sent him a copy of the demand letter I received from BS, even he said that given the fact that the image was not mine to use, not even the best lawyer in the world could get me off...
I started this thread because over the period of weeks while this was happening, I felt in my gut that this was a trap for the unknowing website builder like myself. I recall receiving the "shakedown Letter" one day & after reading it, I thought how could this be happening...Seriously? $10,000 dollars for one photo that I presumed was free to use...My husband thought it was spam & told me to ignore it...
But of course I couldn't stop thinking about it so I googled the lawyers name & saw that he existed.
Naturally, I wanted to end the stress so I called him & tried to rationalise that it was an accident & that no infringement had been intended. He was very quick to explain the laws of copyright infringement to me & no matter what I said, at the end of the day, the only thing he wanted me to say was that I would pay. I remember crying on the phone & pleading which got me nowhere...if anything it gave him the confidence to further intimidate & scare me.
The next thing I did was call VKT gallery & ended up on the phone with his wife. I was again in tears fearful of the prison threat...I have never broken the law except for maybe speeding, so the thought of jail was suffocating me inside & out. She told me I wouldn't go to jail, but that it would cost me something & then informed me to contact HAN & ask to speak to the Art Curator. I did, & gave him the same speech, pleading once again. He told me to call BS to deal with him directly...but I had already tried 4 or 5 times over the phone & several times through email only to be reminded that criminal prosecution was hanging over my head. As I mentioned in the earlier post, I was terrified, had nightmares & would find myself in tears even in the garden trying to find peace of mind planting flowers...what have you etc.
At one point I asked BS, where is the humanity in all of this? Here I am, I'm a good person & would never intentionally break any law, would never steal from another, I've made a stupid uneducated mistake of using this photograph for @ 2 weeks & now I am to come up with $10,000 dollars? I don't have that kind of cash on hand! His only response was "The humanity in this is to pay!" Well that is when I started getting angry and chose to fight back. I found ELI & Oscar & just like that my torment was over.
I have to say, at first when I saw their names appear on this awesome forum & how much they didn't like the negative exposure, I was rewarded by a slightly sweet revenge. Felt that they deserved it for what I was put through...but after time passed, I started to feel sorry for him.
I paid him out...I think it was $300...but was it really worth it for him to go after little me for $300 dollars? After all the dedication, time & money$$$ it cost him to get his degree only to have his reputation darkened. I went to Med school for 2 years before leaving it behind to begin an entrepreneur dream with my family. I know how much work & dedication is involved with getting a degree.
But even after the feeling sorry...all I have to do is remember how he spoke to me while I cried telling him how much I love my son & how he needs me & how I can't go to prison. On every call, he clearly did not care but always told me to pay or make a reasonable offer...
I sent him as much proof as I could to prove I couldn't pay them what they were after. He followed with that he would go after my husband who is also on the my website even though he is not administrator or owner as I am, but still liable. Enough time went by without a reply from me while I searched for answers & loopholes that he must have realised I wasn't lying. He finally emailed me & said "even a few hundred dollars is an offer". But by then, he had gone too far & I had already spoken with Oscar & Matthew over the phone. I made a decision to expose what had happened by associating myself with ELI. I wanted the truth & facts to come out, wanted others to have some defence against this sort of attack...I did it because it was the right thing to do.
I do believe many actions deserve a second chance, for a person to feel remorseful & be forgiven. I believe that BS regrets his dealings with me, primarily because of the light it has shed on him but not necessarily for what happened to me. If anything, judging by his personality during the time I dealt with him, if anything he is just as angry & soar over it all. I am sorry that it got this far & that it tarnished his reputation but had he been just a little more humane with me, none of this would have happened.
My website relies on good photos & since this has all happened, I deleted every photo I had thought free to use...5 years of work gone. I was blessed by several key individuals who volunteered me with unlimited use of thousands of photographs & I was able to re-build my website, even better than it was.
So there it is, the whole story & yes I am much better now, better educated too.
-
EVNL, thank you for sharing your story.
It's remarkable to me that there are men and women practicing law who have hardened themselves to the point where money is apparently the only thing that has meaning for them. I honesty don't understand how these people can ignore the genuine pain they inflict on others with their outrageous and perverted demands for settlements.
-
This is the story that should be sent to the press. EVNL, have you thought about sharing your story with the news media?
-
I don't want to overstep my boundary but I have asked EVNL to go another step further in the story in revealing additional info which she has not yet done. Some of you might be surprised.
EVNL, thank you for sharing your story.
It's remarkable to me that there are men and women practicing law who have hardened themselves to the point where money is apparently the only thing that has meaning for them. I honesty don't understand how these people can ignore the genuine pain they inflict on others with their outrageous and perverted demands for settlements.
-
BS is 'Brandon Give Me Ten Grand Sand'....
-
Extortion-Victim-No Longer, thanks for sharing your experience here.
This is the sort of thing that drives me; fighting the copyright trolls' use of over-the-top tactics, and the human cost of that.
Your case illustrates the lies and the intimidation tactics used.
Sounds like things are better for you now, and I'm sure that I speak for everyone here when I say that I'm glad for that.
S.G.
Thanks SoylentGreen! It's what drove me to sharing my story, so others could read about it & not feel so alone...
-
Thanks for sharing EVNL, I realize it is difficult as we all know that we are "not special"
among the many many cases. However, the emotion can still remain raw.
One does not forget the same "fear" and the "shame" of feeling they've done something wrong despite their best efforts to make sure that they've done their homework and are not infringing on someone's copyright. Lastly, one does not forget the feeling of "stupidity" which one knows is not a legal defense. I am reminded however of the saying, "let the punishment be proportionate to the crime".
As disgusted as I am and have been over this issue, I have to say that this one takes the cake! "5 years in prison" and "10,000.00 for ONE image" is appalling at best
Thanks Peeved, only someone who has gone through it knows how raw those feelings run! ELI is the best place to regain the courage that is needed to fight back...
-
I would also like to thank ENVL for sharing her story. I just sent a 2nd reply to "my" lawyer which I will share with all of you whenever I get a reply from him. "My" photographer resides in Denver and I note that the Denver Post, and I am sure all newspapers, solicits news tips. Also please consider filing a complait at www.ic3.gov the FBI's internet crime web site. I haven't gone either route yet but plan to, dependent upon how my lawyer responds.
-
I would also like to thank ENVL for sharing her story. I just sent a 2nd reply to "my" lawyer which I will share with all of you whenever I get a reply from him. "My" photographer resides in Denver and I note that the Denver Post, and I am sure all newspapers, solicits news tips. Also please consider filing a complait at www.ic3.gov the FBI's internet crime web site. I haven't gone either route yet but plan to, dependent upon how my lawyer responds.
Thank you, I was/am glad to have share it with you all! & Good Luck & Stay Strong!
-
EVNL - I now feel like a chump for quaking in my boots over $2310.00. I can empathize with the emotion - I'm still knee deep in my fight and I can't remember the last time I had a decent nights sleep. It is comforting to know that we are not alone in this. Sure, we have to make a stand in our own cases - but we aren't the only one's making a stand.
Dieselfish...Not sleeping at night is one of the hardest side effects of this kind of threat & intrusion a "shakedown Letters' brings on. Just to try to silence the mind in the middle of the night while your brain plays out the worst scenarios for the ultimate outcome. Hang in there...it will pass & one day you will be stronger for it & you are definitely not alone...
-
EVNL, thank you for sharing your story.
It's remarkable to me that there are men and women practicing law who have hardened themselves to the point where money is apparently the only thing that has meaning for them. I honesty don't understand how these people can ignore the genuine pain they inflict on others with their outrageous and perverted demands for settlements.
Thanks Mulligan...That is so accurate & bang on what you have said here! It really shocked me how apparent this became throughout my ordeal. It all came down to money no matter the emotional cost.
-
Prison? for 5 years??? they actually threatened you with this??
Just when I thought my respect level for Hawaiian Art Network could go no lower, I read this!
I am literally besides myself!
Buddhapi...The threat of 5 years in jail was included in the 'Demand Letter' because I was accused of removing his copyright signature...His signature VKT was never on the image I found from the 'freewallpapers' website. Strange, the link suddenly says page not found but the image still appears. It was up & running very recently.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://fwallpapers.com/files/images/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fwallpapers.com/view/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii&usg=__G2huN_098plvFFevENfvF1yejXQ=&h=1200&w=1600&sz=662&hl=en&start=84&zoom=1&tbnid=dhcZY3kpBMATnM:&tbnh=158&tbnw=204&ei=zzKwTYTxJYrSsAPD0JTlCw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhawaii%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1659%26bih%3D841%26tbm%3Disch0%2C2140&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=936&vpy=327&dur=3308&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=98&ty=109&page=4&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:84&biw=1659&bih=841
Then the lawyer BS reminded me by email that if I didn't pay, that his client takes infringement of his work very seriously & that they would go through with a full force prosecution both civil & criminal.
We also discussed it over the phone, very intensely as I begged him to believe me telling him how frightened I was to go to jail & all he said was pay or make a reasonable offer.
-
& also by email.
-
Thanks Matthew!
I don't know how it would have all turned out without you & Oscar...You two were the first to bring a smile to my face for weeks! You made me laugh & grin again...started sleeping well. I owe my greatest thanks to you & Oscar!
Thanks for getting the courage to finally share your story. As you can see, your story is very moving to our readers. I daresay that he caved in very quickly at $300 because he was getting lots of heat. Plus, when you have a young, inexperienced lawyer with minimal track record going up against Oscar, it will not be pretty.
You have the unfortunate distinction of being the one of the first HAN cases ELI heard about. We are glad you found ELI and Oscar to help you.
You did pay a heavy emotional price. But your story will impact and move many people. Many people have shared their stories but yours is probably the most egregious we have heard thus far. Chalk it up to the genius of Hawaiian Art Network's executive management and supreme lawyer-hiring ability.
-
One last point I would like to make...It is PS that has the software to troll through the internet to find the offensive match. They notify the Artist/Gallery who then decides to pursue it or not. Then a winning case would provide a commission split between all involved, including the lawyer & correct me if I am wrong but PS gains in this too...If anyone knows the full extent of how ramped these images are been posted all over the internet, it would be PS. They would have records because of the nature of their software. PS must have to sort through tons of possible cases before they find one worth pursuing or maybe they have the freewallpaper sites on auto-ignore. It just goes back to the theory that it is all a willing team effort, front to back.
-
I don't want to overstep my boundary but I have asked EVNL to go another step further in the story in revealing additional info which she has not yet done. Some of you might be surprised.
EVNL, thank you for sharing your story.
It's remarkable to me that there are men and women practicing law who have hardened themselves to the point where money is apparently the only thing that has meaning for them. I honesty don't understand how these people can ignore the genuine pain they inflict on others with their outrageous and perverted demands for settlements.
Hi Matthew,
I presumed all would make the connection...that I was the first one who contacted ELI regarding HAN & Brandon Give Me Ten Grand Sand's Settlement Demand Letter months ago. Thank you Matthew for being so patient with me to share my story...
-
You're quite right. Go to the link that "Extortion-Victim-No Longer" provided in a previous post:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://fwallpapers.com/files/images/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fwallpapers.com/view/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii&usg=__G2huN_098plvFFevENfvF1yejXQ=&h=1200&w=1600&sz=662&hl=en&start=84&zoom=1&tbnid=dhcZY3kpBMATnM:&tbnh=158&tbnw=204&ei=zzKwTYTxJYrSsAPD0JTlCw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhawaii%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1659%26bih%3D841%26tbm%3Disch0%2C2140&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=936&vpy=327&dur=3308&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=98&ty=109&page=4&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:84&biw=1659&bih=841
Download the picture. Now go to Google, click on "Images", click on the little camera icon next to the search box, click on "upload image", browse to the image that you downloaded and click "open".
Next scroll down to "Pages that include matching images", look at the listed pages.
The photo appears on more than 89 "FREE" wallpaper sites on the first 26 Google search pages alone.
Many will recall that the image in question was the subject of the infamous "Brandon Sand" extortion letter, seeking an astonishing $10,000.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/brandon-sand-extortion-web.pdf
I'd say that Hawaiian Art Network and photographer Tylor have a credibility problem.
S.G.
Brilliant tip, Soylent Green! I used this technique on a HAN/VKT image. I got about 270 unique results, almost all on free wallpaper or free stock image sites, none of them showing the copyright mark they accuse people of removing without having any proof. I did not know Google had the image matching search capability. You could say it's the ethical version of what the PicScout black hat crawler does.
-
Aloha... I am new in this forum. I am another of the latest people being targeted by VKT & HAR. I was very pleased to find this site. I have been reading for 3 days now. At this point I have only had phone and email contact with a woman connected with HAN and Copyright Services International. I noticed in a blog that said CSI is no longer in service. I know one of the emails I received had a CSI address. I would be interested in being part of a collective of people who are dealing with this issue. I am anticipating that I will be receiving an extortion letter soon. I was given a month to pay the "discounted" rate! When I first got the call I was horrified and have spend days not sleeping well and consumed with fear. I hope that I will not receive a letter and that this just goes away... Time will tell. I hope this doesn't post twice.
-
Greetings,
Copyright Services International no longer exists, I just happened to confirm this today by looking at business records for the state of Hawaii. I would not talk to them by email or telephone. You'll most likely get a letter from someone at some point, if you do you might want to share it with us, so we can pick it apart and give you some insight. You might consider reporting this to the State attorney General, being as CSI was closed down earlier this year.Glen Carner and VK Tylor are skating on this ice, now that they have a counter suit on their hands..Don't give into these trolls!
-
Interestingly, their website is still active:
http://copyrightservicesinternational.com/contact.htm
What's with that?
S.G.
-
Seriously? One phone call and email? Not even a letter or postage stamp?
I am all for for being proactive and responsive but a phone call means very little in this situation. What about the email? Is this an "extortion email" or what?
You are "horrified" and "consumed with fear"? You are going to "hope" this goes away? You said you read for 3 days?
Apparently, you still don't quite understand what's going on if you are that upset. Might I suggest you change your attitude fast or get some help or you will get rolled over.
I am not trying to be insulting or condescending here but if you don't stop acting like a frozen deer staring into headlights, no one can help you. "Hoping" isn't a strategy. If you need help, get the help or provide more meaningful information beside your emotional state.
There is no "collective" effort aside from this support community. There is no class-action lawsuit you can join in as people seem to keep asking. Every recipient has the responsibility to handle their own issue in their own way. No one is going to jump in and do it for you.
You can either do the hard work to study and defend yourself or get some professional assistance. ELI provides a paid phone support service for cases and a paid defense letter program. Even with those options, there is some level of responsibility you will have to take on.
People in the past have come to the ELI Forums using it as an emotional-dumping platform as if they were seeking counseling. We have no problems with expressing anxiety, concern, anger, and all the various emotions that come with dealing with the situation. But don't come on these forums with an unempowered or helpless attitude and ZERO information to help your situation. We don't do emotional counseling here. We take meaningful action to fight back. Or at the very least provide a good defense.
Unempowered emotional venting (crying, fear, paralysis, sleeplessness, etc.) engenders no sympathy from me. That shows lack of understanding or backbone. I won't let the ELI Forums become an emotional dumping area so that others can join in with the emotional upsets. I nip it in the bud right away. It helps and serves no one else here but you. It hurts the overall community energy by allowing unempowered attitudes here.
The ELI Forums have always been about empowerment, knowledge, education, defending yourself, and fighting back. The unempowering and pure emotional stuff is not welcome anywhere on the ELI Forums. People who simply want to get into how the letters rule their lives and their emotional states can go post elsewhere on the Internet.
If you have a specific issue you want to talk or ask about, then state it. We will help and support you. If you are simply lost despite all the reading you have done, just be honest. However, no one is going to type a term paper to help you because it is too much to ask. You might have to be prepared to pay for help.
At this point I have only had phone and email contact with a woman connected with HAN and Copyright Services International. I noticed in a blog that said CSI is no longer in service. I know one of the emails I received had a CSI address. I would be interested in being part of a collective of people who are dealing with this issue. I am anticipating that I will be receiving an extortion letter soon. I was given a month to pay the "discounted" rate! When I first got the call I was horrified and have spend days not sleeping well and consumed with fear. I hope that I will not receive a letter and that this just goes away... Time will tell. I hope this doesn't post twice.
-
Copyright Services International is indeed an active business in the state of Hawaii, it appears they have hanged it to an LLC so Glen Carner can hide behind the corp
http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/business.html?fileNumber=92213C5
http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/trade.html?fileNumber=72605C5&certificate=4091906
The registrant was originally Hawaiian Art Network LLC, perhaps Mr Glen Carner did not want HAN to be sued or he did not want it to appear that the 2 were in fact tied together.
-
Seriously? One phone call and email? Not even a letter or postage stamp?
Unempowered emotional venting (crying, fear, paralysis, sleeplessness, etc.) engenders no sympathy from me. That shows lack of understanding or backbone....
The ELI Forums have always been about empowerment, knowledge, education, defending yourself, and fighting back.
ELI is empowerment...Matthew you are bang on...thank you
-
Seriously? One phone call and email? Not even a letter or postage stamp?
Unempowered emotional venting (crying, fear, paralysis, sleeplessness, etc.) engenders no sympathy from me. That shows lack of understanding or backbone....
The ELI Forums have always been about empowerment, knowledge, education, defending yourself, and fighting back.
ELI is empowerment...Matthew you are bang on...thank you
The idea behind the phone call / email is to not make it a fight but to attempt an amicable resolution before the issue of copyright is ever even mentioned. I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.
-
Seriously? One phone call and email? Not even a letter or postage stamp?
Unempowered emotional venting (crying, fear, paralysis, sleeplessness, etc.) engenders no sympathy from me. That shows lack of understanding or backbone....
The ELI Forums have always been about empowerment, knowledge, education, defending yourself, and fighting back.
ELI is empowerment...Matthew you are bang on...thank you
The idea behind the phone call / email is to not make it a fight but to attempt an amicable resolution before the issue of copyright is ever even mentioned. I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.
An email/phone call would have been much better than the threat of criminal prosecution & up to 5 years in jail.
-
The idea behind the phone call / email is to not make it a fight but to attempt an amicable resolution before the issue of copyright is ever even mentioned. I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.
yeah, just call or email, get the credit card number, make some quick cash to pay the "collection specialist"...no muss no fuss, no fight.....Business as usual target the low hanging fruit some will always roll over and pay..some will not, and others will fight back...
-
The idea behind the phone call / email is to not make it a fight but to attempt an amicable resolution before the issue of copyright is ever even mentioned. I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.
I guess that's why you and your lawyer(s) treat people so lovingly when they call and try to explain what happened and ask for relief, like Extortion Victim No More, eh, Glen?
You guys just use that old telephone to make all these amicable resolutions, right?
LOL... again.
-
An email/phone call would have been much better than the threat of criminal prosecution & up to 5 years in jail.
Rest assured if the phone call doesn't work, there would be an "escalation", don't think for a minute that Copyright Services International, would accept an answer of "I'm sorry I don't have any money, my business is slow, yada, yada, yada" or would they accept a refusal to pay, the "highly trained collection specialist" would just put it in the stack to forward to one of picscouts "retail lawyers"..
-
Gee, don't you just hate it when people who fight back for no reason at all with no provocation? I hate it when that happens.
You might have missed the memo, but most people try to plead their case and it goes nowhere. Hiring defense lawyers are too expensive which forced Oscar Michelen and I to create and design the Defense Letter program.
Payback, retaliation, personal attacks, reputational attacks, online complaints, speaking out, mind-sharing, forensic online investigations, and online fightback tactics all work well to varying degrees. You can thank me for popularizing and spearheading those efforts.
You would never have come here so intent on listening to our side if I hadn't encouraged that philosophy over the years. You will just have to forgive us when we remain skeptical and stick to a winning formula of making change.
It used to be when I believed in an "eye for an eye". Since last year, thanks to Julie Stewart - FECAL (FEmale CAnadian Lawyer), one of your dumb collection lawyers in particular who didn't know when to stop, I graduated to "two for one" specials. That means every time she attacked ELI, we would hit back twice as hard. The reason why this was consciously done was she wouldn't back off.
Don't get me started with Peter Holt who argued with us about using the word "extortion". Brandon Sand stupidly tried to muck around with our Scribd account like Julie did. Your collections lawyers made me come up with even more aggressive tactics to implement and execute.
So please don't try to be a wise ass and try to paint a picture that ELI just became like we are overnight for no provoked reasons. Everything we have done has been a reaction and response to something else. The difference between then and now is many of us have become more seasoned, hardened, skeptical, and far less patient.
You complain about "shoot first and ask questions later"? Gee, who started the whole "guilty until proven innocent" fiasco?
The idea behind the phone call / email is to not make it a fight but to attempt an amicable resolution before the issue of copyright is ever even mentioned. I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.
-
Brandon Sand, the idiot musician bully lawyer who went crazy on EVNL, got taken down by Oscar Michelen in particular. I heard that Brandon was practically begging and crying for Oscar to get his name off of the ELI website.
I bet EVNL thinks paying Oscar and reporting her letter to ELI was one of the best, most empowering thing she has ever done for herself.
Even though her case has long been "settled" (beaten down was more like it), EVNL is free as a bird enjoying payback of which I fully endorse and support.
I guess that's why you and your lawyer(s) treat people so lovingly when they call and try to explain what happened and ask for relief, like Extortion Victim No More, eh, Glen?
You guys just use that old telephone to make all these amicable resolutions, right?
LOL... again.
-
The idea behind the phone call / email is to not make it a fight but to attempt an amicable resolution before the issue of copyright is ever even mentioned. I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.
The difficulty is that a phone call of this sort results in asymmetry of power. The person who answers the phone has absolutely no clue about the situation at all. At least when I got my getty letter, as vague as it was on my infraction (no indication of uri, no link to actual image etc.), and as ridiculously extortionate the demand was ($875 for a tiny, blurry image deep in comment on a blog post with many, many comments), I had time to do a little research to figure out what they were talking about before responding.
Had I gotten a phone call, I wouldn't have had sufficient information to say anything other than, "I don't know what you are talking about. Could you elaborate?"
As a matter of principle, I don't believe in giving out any information to cold calls. Irrespective of the entire image trolling/enforcement/collection (pick your word) issue, if someone calls, I do not confirm my name. I do not confirm whether or not I own a particular domain name. I do not tell people my birth date and so on.
Maybe other people do and maybe your motive is to get a mutually satisfactory resolution. But the fact is I would be unable to know what sort of resolution was satisfactory to me during a cold call from someone I had never heard of before.
-
"You can thank me for popularizing and spearheading those efforts. "
Thanks Matthew!
"Since last year, thanks to Julie Stewart - FECAL (FEmale CAnadian Lawyer), one of your dumb collection lawyers in particular who didn't know when to stop,"
At least she finally "got it", personally I like the 2 for 1's so much sometimes I go the extra mile and add a 3rd..
"Don't get me started with Peter Holt who argued with us about using the word "extortion". Brandon Sand stupidly tried to muck around with our Scribd account like Julie did."
You're making my eye twitch, which is never a good sign..
"So please don't try to be a wise ass and try to paint a picture that ELI just became like we are overnight for no provoked reasons. Everything we have done has been a reaction and response to something else. The difference between then and now is many of us have become more seasoned, hardened, skeptical, and far less patient."
and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev), I no longer have a personal reason to be here, but you can bet your bottom dollar I will remain here and be a thorn in the trolls asses...Name and shame, I take no prisoners!
(http://firstin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/albert-einstein-trolls.jpg)
-
Buddhapi, again with the drink out my nose getting on the laptop. I need to buy a keyboard cover if I'm gonna keep reading your posts.
-
No apologies necessary Budd.....and WHERE is Mcfilms? I want some Popcorn!
lol....
;D
and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev),
-
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I love reading your posts buddhapi! Not only to you present much needed timely information you make me laugh, snort and chuckle. When you talk about the eye twitch I can picture the old pink panther movies and Chief Inspector Dreyfus with his eye twitching everything he here’s the name Clouseau. I’m going to have to stop by and just yell Troll! Troll! Troll! and see what happens. :D
Thanks again for all you do for us buddhapi!
"Don't get me started with Peter Holt who argued with us about using the word "extortion". Brandon Sand stupidly tried to muck around with our Scribd account like Julie did."
You're making my eye twitch, which is never a good sign..
-
No apologies necessary Budd.....and WHERE is Mcfilms? I want some Popcorn!
lol....
;D
and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev),
I'm around Peeved. It just seems that there is already a whole lotta blood in the water already and I don't really want to add my chum bucket-full to the mix.
-
No apologies necessary Budd.....and WHERE is Mcfilms? I want some Popcorn!
lol....
;D
and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev),
I'm around Peeved. It just seems that there is already a whole lotta blood in the water already and I don't really want to add my chum bucket-full to the mix.
party pooper...Wheni go on vacation next moth I'll hand you the reigns..and for those that aren't aware, be careful around us Floridians, we're known to chew off peoples faces from time to time.
-
No apologies necessary Budd.....and WHERE is Mcfilms? I want some Popcorn!
lol....
;D
and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev),
I'm around Peeved. It just seems that there is already a whole lotta blood in the water and I don't really want to add my chum bucket-full to the mix.
-
party pooper...Wheni go on vacation next moth I'll hand you the reigns..and for those that aren't aware, be careful around us Floridians, we're known to chew off peoples faces from time to time.
LOL.......... Ya I heard about that poor homeless guy! What is in the water there? There was another incident in Maryland as well! The Zombies are coming! YIKES!
;D
-
Rock on Matthew and Buddhapi