ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on June 02, 2012, 03:48:12 AM
-
It's interesting that Glen has been here a couple days and few has pushed the issue despite the fact that it has been brought up MANY times in relation to HAN. It has been talked around but not to my (and others) satisfaction. Maybe because the community is still adjusting to Glen's new presence or simply still in reactionary mode. I know BuddhaPi and a couple others have brought it up. I am taking the liberty to put a bulls-eye on this burning issue.
What is Glen Carner's official position on Vincent K. Tylor, his beliefs, practices? What about the "seeding"? What about the "free wallpapers"? Is that a way to entrap users? Is HAN taking advantage of the presumed piracy and/or seeding?
Glen has the opportunity to answer and clarify his position on this on our community. Obviously, it would be unreasonable to expect Glen to get into Vincent's head but it isn't unreasonable to get Glen's take on this.
I want to give credit to EVNL for this one. I believe she was the first, or one of the first to bring the issue of "wallpaper baiting" eventually leading to the "seeding" discussion. Quite honestly, both Oscar and I blew it off in the beginning because it sounded too much like a UFO reporting with a conspiracy theory feel.
However, gradually over time, more and more people kept getting nailed by VKT images and discovered how one photographers images (VKT) seemed to be "distributed" more (far beyond what would be considered "normal"). Even Oscar and I have been forced to acknowledge what others have discovered and brought to our attention. (Good job, ELI community!)
From surface appearances, it looks like HAN makes a nice income from VKT-related extortion letters alone.
Can we get a definitive position statement and explanation on the Vincent Tylor images situation?
I am absolutely sure I speak for the ELI Community that they want to know.
-
I'd just like his official position on artists who make their images available nearly for free on Webshots, knowing they get picked up by wallpaper sites who advertize them for free and then suing the unsuspecting people who got them from the "free" wallpaper site.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/free-baitpapers/msg4501/#msg4501
He can leave Tylor's name out-- just comment on the practice.
As long as Han represents artists who operate like this I"m going to have a low opinion of HAN.
-
There obviously was never any seeding which you are now aware of. Quite the contrary. Have you ever seen the client list on WebShots? They represent some of the best and brightest in the photographic community and the largest agencies in the world. Are you accusing them all of seeding? Ridiculous.
If you start with the fact that the images were used in the same way most things are on the internet, what alternative does Mr. Tylor have? Should Mr. Tylor abandon his collection and sales because of the unauthorized sharing? Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites? None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor.
I asked this before. At what point does the infringing party have ANY responsibility in what they do with any images they find on the internet? I don't simply use any image I find on the internet, I license it. I dont pull images off of Google Images or a wallpaper site and use them on my business website, I pay for them. Any business owner should know this and it is their responsibly to do so. In another thread it was mentioned that the "trolls" started this. No, we dont take action unless someone is profiting from our works. We are responding to a situation that we did not create as best we can.
Again these are not college students downloading music for personal use. These are business professionals using our images for their profit and yes, I as well as Mr. Tylor feel strongly that the use should be compensated wither the business owner cared enough to ensure that they could use the image or not.
-
LOL.
-
Mr Carner,
Have you in the past or are you presently making concerted efforts to have Mr Tylor's images removed from the hundreds of sites that presently offer them as free of cost?
If so, can you present any letters from your lawyers or DMCA takedown requests?
Please be mindful that obvious evidence of seeding images for free will always trump the simple denials that you have made.
We would like to see what Mr Tylor and you are doing about it.
S.G.
-
No one accused webshots of seeding, again you seem to try to twist and spin what you read..maybe a life of politics is better suited for you, but I digress
Let me ask you this: Every letter except one we have seen come from HAN has been in regards to Tylors' images, why is it that none of your other photographers under the HAN umbrella have this very same issue? Are you saying their work doesn't compare to Tylors?, that his images are just "nicer"?
While on the subject of HAN and the photgrpahers you work with, I noticed a few months back you had a nice listing of photographers under the Hawaiian Art Network umbrella, yet today when I look I see no list just V.K.Tylor, did your other photogs abandon ship, before the lifeboats filled up? Just curious, I now if I was one of them I would certainly distance myself, my business, and my reputation from the dirty doings of Hawaiian Art Network...
There are many "theories" posted on ELI in regards to how the images may have gotten out there, some may accuse HAN or Tylor of seeding, some don't. I personally have my own theory on what happened, but again I digress..
Once again you label the "infringing party" as guilty, and treat them as common thieves, which just adds to the "disgust factor"
No one has stated that Tylor should abandon his "collection" although by the looks of things it may be a little late to even discuss this.
-
It is easier than ever to build your own website, you log in, choose a template, add content & photos. A 5 year old could build a website. The number of websites out there which are home-made, built by small business owners to create online presence is huge. As are the number of innocent un-willful infringers who would have no idea that it was not okay to use photos which are advertised as FREE.
How about the struggling single mom who hires said expert next door to build a website hoping to subsidise her income just to get slammed with the dreaded letter? Does it matter to you or V.K. Tylor that she paid you $700 instead of letting her son play basketball because she no longer had the funds to pay for league fees & badly needed new shoes? That they ate frozen peas for 2 weeks so you could get compensation for her innocent offence. Does it matter to you that she had no idea, was willing to immediately take down the photo. I guess not, she is a professional business woman and should pay your inflated penalty fees.
What about the self taught, who was able to build an amazing looking website but had no idea to not use that FREEwallpaper...That person gets a settlement letter demanding $10,000 & threatened for civil & criminal crimes...pay or go to jail for up to 5 years?
-
If you start with the fact that the images were used in the same way most things are on the internet, what alternative does Mr. Tylor have? Should Mr. Tylor abandon his collection and sales because of the unauthorized sharing? Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites? None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor.
People have asked over and over and over again, what action, if any, has HAN taken to cut off these images at the source? Simply stating that you issue a thousand DMCA complaints doesn't jibe with the fact that these images are so prevalent throughout the internet. There are many, many US-sites that offer images for free. A simple complaint would result in the image removal.
I'm also unclear about the position held by you and Mr. Tylor. Do you consider he is within his rights to share his photos on these wallpaper sites and if someone downloads an image from there and uses it on a site, then it's open season on them?
If Mr. Tylor is so ardent about protecting his intellectual property, why aren't more of the images out there clearly watermarked? Why are so many ultra-high rez (1600 pixels or more) versions available? Do you not see having large, un-watermarked images so prevalent as "bait"? Yes, he is not required to watermark his digital images by copyright law, but it helps make his position clear. And that is why so many people here are suspicious of him and you.
You also seem to be trying to draw a line between "personal use" and "public display." I think your position is that a song downloaded for personal use is "less" of an infringement than broadcasting it from a web site. I suppose this is because Mr. Tylor has made many of his images available as prints for purchase for $10. Good luck with that argument. You are essentially saying that I could buy a print, hang it in the lobby of my office building where it will be seen by scores of people every day. And that has a $10 cost. However if I put that same image on my web site and it has traffic of a few dozen people over the course of a year, the image is now worth a thousand bucks? I don't think that arguement is going to win. To claim the type of "exclusivity" HAN wants for it's "rights managed" images, the rights actually have to be managed.
PS I see SG and Buddhapi replied while I was typing. Okay, they are faster typists than I am. Oh! So is EVNL.
-
Mr Carner,
Have you in the past or are you presently making concerted efforts to have Mr Tylor's images removed from the hundreds of sites that presently offer them as free of cost?
If so, can you present any letters from your lawyers or DMCA takedown requests?
Please be mindful that obvious evidence of seeding images for free will always trump the simple denials that you have made.
We would like to see what Mr Tylor and you are doing about it.
S.G.
Yes, HAN does them continuously. There are a few other things that we may be able to provide to quickly debunk this (even though your research could provide a quick answer if you stop looking for what you are trying to find) which hopefully I can post here shortly. Thank you for asking though which is much appreciated vs. the shoot first ask questions later approach.
-
Are you accusing them all of seeding? Ridiculous.
I'm not accusing them of intentionally seeding. But as a practical matter, the way Webshots operates facilitates access by people who run wallpaper sites. So, I consider this seeding.
I suspect when they first sign up, photographers don't know how easy it is for material to get from Webshots to a free wallpaper site. But once a photographer knows it can happens and is happening, and the photographer begins making substantial amounts of money suing people who got the images off the free wallpaper sites I consider the the behavior to be intentional seeding.
Now: I've answered your question. Could you elaborate on why you think my idea is ridiculous? My impression is you are suggesting that if the client list of Webshots is famous, they somehow can't be accidentally seeding. I would suggest that is a ridiculous notion and will assume that is not what you are suggesting. But that leaves me entirely unable to guess any sane or rational reason what you think is ridiculous about the notion that offering images on Webshots is seeding.
If you start with the fact that the images were used in the same way most things are on the internet, what alternative does Mr. Tylor have?
Goodness! He has many alternatives. Here is one: If he wants to sell an individual photo at a premium price for limited distribution and still sell over the web he can make them on the web as thumbnails (or at least small versions) only. Then only those who fill out a license and pay the full fee would be permitted access to the full digital version.
Here's another: He could just live off the money he makes from Webshots and recognize that some unlicensed work will also occur in parallel, and not sue the pants off people who honestly thought they were using free images.
I'm sure if you got a little creative, you could think of other possibilities.
My alternatives would not require Tylor (or any similarly situated photographer) to abandon his collection because of unauthorized copying. It would only recognize that if he elects to make a particular high resolution image available practically for free in an environment where unauthorized copying by people who will advertize them as "free" occurs then he will not be able to collect from people who obtained the images them from the "free" sites. (Or actually, what I have in mind is he would not be able to collect fees for use that occurred before he sent a C&D letter informing them of their error.)
(BTW: Does trying to resort to rhetorical questions that suggest your client has no other option than to operate that the way he is operating work in court? Because it tends not to work at blogs of forums?)
Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites?
Let me respond to your argument by rhetorical question with my own rhetorical question:
Once a photographer knows that the method of sale at Webshot guarantees that his images will be represented as being available for "free" by "free wallpaper sites" and he knows that people are duped into believing these images are free and -- knowing this-- he does not one thing to remove the image from Webshots, but instead, continues to collect revenue from Webshots should he be permitted to reap excess financial rewards -- and extract price levels a customer would never have paid-- by suing or threatening to sue people who unwittingly used the images? And suing multiple people?
Why should the this business model not be seen as "baiting"?
So now my answer to your rhetorical question is: I don't think businesses should have free rein. I think Tylor should be permitted to send a C&D to these businesses informing them of their error. Once the business has been made aware they images are not free, they should either have to take down the images or negotiate a fee for continued use.
This is not giving businesses free rein and presumably you should know that.
None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor.
Maybe it not acceptable to you or Mr. Tylor. But you claim you want to know what other people think. I'm telling you my opinion of how the law should stand.
At what point does the infringing party have ANY responsibility in what they do with any images they find on the internet?
I believe several people have answered this before.
At the risk of being repetitive, let me repeat: I think the infringing party has responsibility when they profit directly from the image or, in the case of indirect profit, when they have good reason to even suspect that the images belong to someone else.
The former-- direct profit--occurs if the infringing party is doing something like selling the image itself. For example: If I were to upload Mr. Tylors image to CafePress and sell mugs with the pretty pictures, I think I should be liable for infringement even before Tylor sends a C&D and I should be liable even if I thought the use was "free". How much I should be liable for might depend on the image, the mugs and so on. But in this case, the image itself forms my product. And I should be liable.
The latter- indirect profit-- occurs when someone uses an image to 'decorate' their site. For example, they might use a pretty picture as a background. In this case, though it is a business use, the business is not really making a profit from the image. Because images used in this way are fungible-- the cost any business would pay for such use is miniscule. Business people know that free images do exist, and -- whether you like it or not-- there is no easy way to verify an image is free. (Oddly enough, there isn't even an easy way to discover an image is copyrighted!)
So, businesses who come across "free wallpaper sites" actually have no reason to suspect those images are not free. And there is little way to check.
In my opinion, they have little to no ethical or moral responsibility to pay the photographer for any use prior to receiving a C&D letter informing them the photographer owns the image. None.
That means-- in my opinion-- with respect to the Tylor situation: because he earns revenue on his images through a venue that makes it easy for "free wallpaper sites" to get them for free, and they appear on "free wallpaper sites" and he knows they appear on "free wallpaper sites" and he knows the people exhibiting his images actually have been duped into believing they are "free", I think the businesses who are duped by these "free wallpaper sites" should not own him anything unless they are sent a C&D and refuse to take the images down.
In some other situations where a photographer does not earn revenue making high resolution images available for free on the internet, an infringing party might have good reason to suspect the images belong to someone else at an earlier point in time and a business might have responsibility for display prior to getting a C&D letter. That these other situations may exists-- and almost certainly do exist-- is irrelevant to my opinion of what your Mr. Tylor is morally or ethically due for use prior to his sending a C&D.
(Note: What he is legally due may or may not align with copyright law. But it seems to me you are asking my opinion of what is fair, not what is legal. Anyway, I'm an engineer. I'm not going to tell you my interpretation of what copyright law permits you.)
I don't simply use any image I find on the internet,
What you, a person who makes your living selling images and whose bread and butter is knowing copyright law would do if you wanted to use an image is not particularly relevant to what my view on whether VK Tylor should be permitted to extract from people who-- partly due to VK Tylors business model-- were duped into using his images for free.
I as well as Mr. Tylor feel strongly that the use should be compensated wither the business owner cared enough to ensure that they could use the image or not.
Sure. You two feel strongly that people should go to great trouble to do something almost impossible-- check if an image advertized for free is really free. But evidently, my suggestions your client take action to inadvertently seeding you seem to view with utter incredulity!
My opinion of you and Mr. Tylor is low because you elect to follow the business model you seem to have elected to follow.
Most the businesses you criticize for using your images would have looked for other suitable photos had the images not been represented for free-- and the fact they were represented as free arose as a direct result of your business model. Instead, because as a result of what appears to be a 'Webshots->free wall paper sites->sue the mopes' business model, they are being sent letters demanding fees these they would never have paid and which, quite honestly, I think are exorbitant given the rather limited incremental value these images garner websites where they are used as decorations. (Albeit pretty decorations. But lots of pretty decorations exist.)
That's my opinion. Feel free to respond by posing additional rather loaded rhetorical questions (whose answers you will probably not like) or telling me how you and your client "feel" or telling me what you find acceptable or not. But I don't "feel" my opinions need to be adjusted to be acceptable to you or your client or make you and your client "feel" good. So, we might waste less time if you refrained from sharing your feelings with me and just stick to discussion what you do think might be fair and I'll tell you what I think is fair. It may turn out that we can't see eye to eye-- so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it. But I will write to my congress critter when people are considering modifications of copyright law. And you can bet that I'll express what I think is fair. You can do the same.
-
That was an excellent reply Lucia. No complaints for sure. Its just that we never seeded anything and neither did our artists. Points well taken though.
-
Glen--
I want to see if we disagree on what constitutes seeding or whether we disagree on some facts. So here are two questions:
1) Did I incorrectly diagnose that VK Tylor photos are or were available at Webshots?
2) Do you think it impossible or difficult for high resolution images made available on Webshots to be downloaded nearly for free?
I think his photos are quite beautiful by the way.
-
If you start with the fact that the images were used in the same way most things are on the internet, what alternative does Mr. Tylor have? Should Mr. Tylor abandon his collection and sales because of the unauthorized sharing?
Who ever said this?
Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites? None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor.
You can say "ignorance" of the law is no excuse. But whether you like it or not, nearly no one regards the "importance" of an image as highly as other "crimes" and it will be fought and contested.
I asked this before. At what point does the infringing party have ANY responsibility in what they do with any images they find on the internet? I don't simply use any image I find on the internet, I license it.
I am intentionally skipping this. I have no incentive to do YOUR homework and solve YOUR problems.
I dont pull images off of Google Images or a wallpaper site and use them on my business website, I pay for them. Any business owner should know this and it is their responsibly to do so. In another thread it was mentioned that the "trolls" started this. No, we dont take action unless someone is profiting from our works. We are responding to a situation that we did not create as best we can.
Excuse me, last time I checked even children are starting websites and online businesses. How would anyone even begin to learn when their parents didn't even know. Exactly what business courses in college teach about image licensing? When someone registers their corporation as you did in Hawaii, did you sign a document saying that you shouldn't use images without licensing them? I am a web-savvy, independent publisher that produces and custom-create most of my own content whether it's text, photos, or graphics. Despite my efforts, to stay on the up and up, it didn't occur to me I would get nailed because of a web designer in India.
How about many small business owners who knew very little and hired a web designer? Where would these people get their education? You might say "it's their problem to deal with". To that, I would agree with. Having said that, I launched ELI with my own way of dealing and fighting back your extortionate industry. The fact that you are debating us shows that what we do work, however unconventional and renegade it might be.
I would have no problems telling some people (but very rare) to tell your peers in the industry to shove their claim up where the sun don't shine. I am not a lawyer so I can say that. Ultimately, the person can decide what to do. But in almost no way shape or form would I recommend people to pay these outrageous settlement amounts especially from collection lawyers getting 30%-40% of the take. That is just dumb.
Again these are not college students downloading music for personal use. These are business professionals using our images for their profit and yes, I as well as Mr. Tylor feel strongly that the use should be compensated wither the business owner cared enough to ensure that they could use the image or not.
You and VKT can go feel whatever you want. No one cares or asking your or VKT's approval. We don't ask permission around here. We implement and execute on well-thought out strategy to fight back. If you never came around, we would continue what we do. People know what is fair and reasonable and what is not. You guys still don't get it and probably never will. Don't be surprised if your industry eventually gets put out of business. Most "normal" people will not tolerate what your industry does. I absolutely believe there will come a point when there have been so many extortion letters issued, it will lead to unexpected and unintended ripple effects that will be detrimental your peers and industry.
-
Glen Carner, on brothersoft.com someone apparently used your name on April 13, 2010, to plant an image and clearly label it as...
License: Freeware Free
Requirement: No special requirements
Publisher: Glen Carner
This is found at http://www.brothersoft.com/hawaii-pictures-screen-saver-13.html
I guess you don't know much about the internet because many individuals think it's web friendly to upload and pass along images clearly labeled as Freeware, Free.
How unfortunate that some of these same individuals will eventually get amicable phone calls to be followed by threatening letters from an aggrieved middleman's lawyer to "protect the rights" of some photographer.
But, hey, a guy has to feed his family and keep the world safe by twisting enforcing copyright law, right??
-
Here's a Free Glen Carner Hawaii screensaver from 11-Sep-2000 http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Authors/Glen_Carner.html
-
There certainly a lot of them out there, here are a few more I found just doing a quick search. They all appear to be the same program by the actual file name and they all say they are free and it is from Glen Carner.
Mr. Carner, taking you at your word that you did not upload this why are you not concentrating your efforts on stopping this instead of going after people who are innocently downloading it when everything on every page here says it’s free? You say you are sending out C&D letters to these places, can you post some of them for us to see, so we can see that you are trying to stop the spread rather than cash in on people who have obviously been misled into thinking they were getting a free screen saver?
http://www.downseeker.com/download/80673/hawaii-pictures-screen-saver-1.0/
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Shell_and_Desktop/Places_Screen_Savers/free/Hawaii_Pictures_Screen_Saver.html
http://wareseeker.com/Home-Shell-Desktop/hawaii-pictures-screen-saver-1.0.zip/53258
-
Those images don't display for me. Are they gone? Of is it a mac thing?
-
Lucia, a lot of these images are in screen saver programs that are compiled into PC executable files. So us Mac people can't see them.
I think claiming that someone thought an image they pulled off some screensaver software and put on their website was "free" is a bit of a stretch. I also don't think that's where they are coming from. I think a lot of the HAN claims stem from fairly large images that have no watermarks and are on sites that advertise them for free download. I know when I looked 6 months ago there were a LOT of these sites. Maybe HAN has taken some steps to stem the tide, I don't know and I'll leave it to them to report on that.
But I do know one thing. If I saw (or imagined) that I was loosing money due to images being available on these sites or in software, I would take steps to clean this up long before I started suing people for using them. After all, to claim that your images are "rights managed" you have to actually manage the rights. And that doesn't mean just suing the small businesses that have these images.
-
I agree that someone extracting an image from screensaver software is unlikely to think the owner of the image intends it to be distributed for free. So, if someone who created a site got it that say-- they should be liable.
But if that software is made available by the owner for free, and it's possible to extract the image then this path exists:
"owner provides software for free-> wall paper site guy strips out high def image -> image appears on wall paper site -> unsuspecting business owner (aka "the mope") uses image".
To my mind, if the owner knows this can happen-- or if after it happens a few times-- they don't stop providing the software for free, they shouldn't be able to sue "the mope". Obviously, since I have a mac I'm not going to try to fiddle with the .exe files to figure out what's involved in extracting an image. (I assume it's probably not that hard.)
-
Here's a Free Glen Carner Hawaii screensaver from 11-Sep-2000 http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Authors/Glen_Carner.html
The Hawaii Pictures screensaver (which has no commercial images in it) was originally posted on CNET and then shared between the download companies like the links you posted. Did anyone bother to download it and see whats on there? Of course not. More important to try and injure me and my company. Here's a free copy, again...
Here's a free copy http://ge.tt/5fsdTTI/v/0 (http://ge.tt/5fsdTTI/v/0).
-
okay, so take the "free screen saver" out of the equation, there are still literally hundreds of sites with FREE high resolution images available for download, some even having a creative commons license..You don't need our help to damage your company, you and your lawyers are doing just fine by themselves.We simply report on goings on..
-
The Hawaii Pictures screensaver (which has no commercial images in it) was originally posted on CNET and then shared between the download companies like the links you posted.
Interesting choice of words. I'm trying to figure out how far to interpret what it means. I assume the file didn't just jump onto CNET of it's own volition. Who originally posted the file to CNET?
Also: you said no commercial images.
On the issue of images are on the screensaver: If whatever images are on there are not involved in any suit or letters demanding monetary compensation for HAN then it is, of course, irrelevant to any discussion of HAN collection attempts. (You will note that my discussion did contain an "if" clause. You seem to have been interested in general principles-- and I am also.)
As discussed above: I have a mac. I said the images don't display for me and said I wasn't going to try to download or fiddle to try to extract anything in an .exe file.
Are you saying there are no images at all on the screensaver?
If there are images of any sort on the screensaver, have any migrated over to any free wallpaper sites?
And finally: By using the term non-commercial you saying that none of the contents of that screensaver have been involved in any of your collection attempts or suits?
As I cannot look at the screensaver, I can't discover these myself.
-
Regarding "By using the term non-commercial you saying that none of the contents of that screensaver have been involved in any of your collection attempts or suits?"
YES YES YES and ABSOLUTELY!
-
So, you're saying that they're public domain?
Or, that you reserve the right to sue for infringing uses in the future?
S.G.
-
http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif
-
http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif
Nice I Like this one, but I'm no Jackson fan by any means
http://www.gifsoup.com/view/179341/mj-thriller-popcorn-o.gif
-
Support Canadian Talent!!
Luv hot buttered popcorn and passive-agressive posts by Uncle Glen!!
http://i.imgur.com/I3V8z.gif
"Ruining the industry" one kernel at a time.
S.G.
-
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
LOVIN' THE SHOW!
;D
-
Regarding "By using the term non-commercial you saying that none of the contents of that screensaver have been involved in any of your collection attempts or suits?"
YES YES YES and ABSOLUTELY!
Fair enough then. That means this screen saver is irrelevant to any of the discussions of suits or collection attempts.
-
"Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites? None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor.
Any business owner should know this and it is their responsibly to do so. In another thread it was mentioned that the "trolls" started this. No, we dont take action unless someone is profiting from our works. We are responding to a situation that we did not create as best we can."
So Glen, since you are only responding to people who are profiting from your/VKT works... Does that mean if my business has made NO profit, and I had immediately removed the image from my site that you will leave me alone?
"Again these are not college students downloading music for personal use.
These are business professionals using our images for their profit and yes, I as well as Mr. Tylor feel strongly that the use should be compensated wither the business owner cared enough to ensure that they could use the image or not.
Your assumption that we are all business professionals who should "care" enough... Is not accurate. I am a single parent, trying to start a new business, inexperienced in the Internet, so I "cared" enough to hired someone to do my site to avoid any such problems. I asked where the photos came from and believed when told they were in the public domain. That had been downloaded from an AT&T site of free photos. The one and only photo in question is 240/320 and only a portion of the original. The photograph is available for free 15 pages deep on a google search in much larger sizes. Thanks to ELI I am gaining knowledge and empowerment.
-
Where is Glen Carner? He promised to participate on these forums DAILY and address questions such as this. I know there was talk about banning him (or charging him to post). But my understanding was that there was a stay of execution offered. I expected he would take advantage of this time to answer questions such as those asked by Activated.
-
McFilms, he must be busy hanging wallpaper on a federal courthouse. :P
-
Funny, I thought about asking you where he was at. He was given until June 30, 2012 to keep posting. I figured that would be more than enough time. However, he might be put off by the fact he was given a time limit.
Whatever his reasons, if he disappears on his own, that is fine by me. However, he still has plenty of time to say what he needs to say.
Where is Glen Carner? He promised to participate on these forums DAILY and address questions such as this. I know there was talk about banning him (or charging him to post). But my understanding was that there was a stay of execution offered. I expected he would take advantage of this time to answer questions such as those asked by Activated.
-
I posted some emails here between myself and VKT that are contrary to what he is saying here.
1- VKT said he was going after everyone who used his image, even if its a student blog.
2- He also admitted that he knew the company he was supplying his images to were using them for wall paper and admitted that he continues to supply his images to them. Why would he do this if he is trying to stop the sharing??
3 - I asked him why he didn't do a better job protecting his images online, as a webmaster I gave him a list of things he could do. He told me he was in the process of doing those things, but to date nothing has changed. He also told me that making his images smaller would hurt sales, as people like to see them big and he shouldn't have to make them smaller, people should stop stealing.
4 - He admitted going after Dollar Rent a car for 5 figures for a full page ad and I know some other figures he has pursued. In some cases the use is the same, but the price varies from $3000 to $30,000? The only difference is who used it. He changes the price, not how the image was used, but who is using it (how much money they have) If he was fairly recovering, he would have a consistent price structure based on usage.
5 - I gave his attorney 5 sites located in the US that were the major sources of his images and I believe I even gave him the hosts information. These images were never removed. It is very easy to do takedowns in the US. TOO easy. In fact people can take your site down just by claiming you infringed, with no proof even. Godaddy doesn't even verify, they just suspend the server.
6 - Lanikai Girl, one of the more popular images being used, is still showing top in the searches. Google will take the images out of the searches if you file that it is infringing, even if you can't get it off the source. I have done this. It takes a few weeks. This image still remains in top position.
As much time has passed, they have had more than enough time to make a difference if they were in fact, trying to stop the downloading. I don't buy it for these reasons.
BTW, I contacted one of the sites carrying his images which is located in the US. The site owner told me he only puts up images that are given to him by the owners with permission, otherwise, his site would be taken down all the time. I asked him if he could provide us with some kind of information on the source of VKTs pictures. I showed him this forum and explained the issue, that we are trying to research if the images are being seeded. The site owner understood and said he is checking with his attorney to see if he can share this information. He has some kind of form they fill out and attaches images to, and he tracks IPS and does a confirmation. (not sure if this is something in writing or not). Anyway, I am hoping he will provide us with the information because obviously if it shows the images came from VKT then it proves the claims. And if it didn't then he knows to take the image down, and fix his system.
-
Dee,
It looks like you have been doing your share of investigative reporting. Very interesting but not entirely surprising. You have only confirmed our ongoing suspicions.
-
Great work, Dee. I couldn't agree more about VKT's negligence with his images. He may be guilty of abandoning his copyright or sleeping on his right to enforce his copyright, especially for the ridiculous sums he is asking. As you say, the amounts he claims are based on the client's estimated ability to pay, not on any kind of a fair usage scale.
Even while going through a case the man is busy registering images with the US Copyright Office. Just last June 4, VKT registered an image titled "Big Island Coastline - B-22" which he claims is from 2003. What's interesting about this image is that it does NOT appear to be a baitpaper image at all. In fact, there is a very short list of images that match it on a Google images search.
http://www.hawaiipictures.com/picture_detail/99999-411/
I bet this image is going to be used for a claim soon. There is actually a short list of websites that appear to be infringing on this image.
Why else would VKT suddenly run to the copyright office and register a 9-year-old image? With this image, the defendants won't have the baitpaper defense because it's not out there as bait.
Here's the registration info for that image:
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0001821752 / 2012-06-04
Application Title: Big Island Coastline - B-22.
Title: Big Island Coastline - B-22.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Vincent Khoury Tylor, 1962- . Address: P.O. Box 510164, Kealia, HI, 96751, United States.
Date of Creation: 2003
Date of Publication: 2003-08-31
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Vincent Khoury Tylor, 1962- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)
Alternative Title on Application: 1 Photograph Published on Aug. 31, 2003
Rights and Permissions: Vincent Khoury Tylor, P.O. Box 510164, Kealia, HI, 96751, United States, (808) 823-1263, vince@hawaiianphotos.net
Names: Tylor, Vincent Khoury, 1962-
Dee, I wanted to mention that I also approached a webmaster from one of the numerous baitpaper sites by asking them if they were aware that the images they were offering as free wallpaper were copyright infringements. The webmaster did not know since a "guest blogger" put up the images as a post on their blog. The webmaster was suspicious of my approach; he thought I was selling something or scamming. I told him I just wanted to warn him that he was violating someone's copyright and that he was also seeding for the copyright owners (HAN/VKT), who go around making extortionate claims for using those images.
I guess he eventually believed me. First he took the images down, then later he took the whole post down. I have to assume they did not realize what was going on and thought the post was "fair use". At least in this case I don't believe they were intentionally seeding the images, but I did not communicate with the person who actually posted the images on that blog.
-
By the way, Dee, I do have a quick question: Which company did VKT supply images to that distributed them as wallpaper? You mention this on item 2 of your post.
-
I wonder if Vincent k Tylor is teaching his son the ways of sending extortion letters?
http://www.scottephotos.com/
-
I wonder if Vincent k Tylor is teaching his son the ways of sending extortion letters?
http://www.scottephotos.com/
I think Mulligan's post applies here as well!
;)
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/ny-appellate-court-says-the-term-%27extortionist%27-is-not-defamatory/msg6374/#msg6374
-
You're right peeved I think that does apply and you have a great memory I had forgotten about that one ;D
-
I wonder if Vincent k Tylor is teaching his son the ways of sending extortion letters?
http://www.scottephotos.com/
Well, not unlike his father, his work is on Webshots:
http://www.webshots.com/pro/photo/3275662?path=/travel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-oahu
And not unlike his father, his work is on baitpaper sites, albeit not as many:
http://photosunion.com/photos/Makapuu-Overlook-Oahu-Hawaii/
There's kind of a pattern here, isn't there?