Messages

1096

Getty Images Letter Forum / Why are you on ELI? Why do you keep coming back to ELI?

« on: November 10, 2012, 09:22:22 PM »

Robert and I were asking ourselves why people hang out here on ELI beyond the obvious of getting answers to extortion letter questions? Most of you no longer need ELI's help or services and yet many of you come back periodically and participate.

Why does the ELI Community even exist and why do ELI Community members hang arouned?  Why do the ELI "regulars" stay regulars?  Are you here because you want the latest news and information?  Are you addicted/do you enjoy the drama that comes up now and again?  Are you here because you are among friends?  Are you here because you feel passionately about the cause that ELI represents? Are you here because you feel you make a difference?

What is it about ELI that keeps many of you coming back?  By rights, most of you no longer need ELI's help or services and yet many of you do come back.

Robert, Oscar, and I would really like to know if you are willing to share.

1097

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Canadian Photogs Now Officially Own the Copyright to All of Their Photos

« on: November 10, 2012, 08:18:32 PM »

I am not sure I agree with this.  If I hire and pay a photographer (in a work-for-hire arrangement) to take photos on my behalf for me or my business, THEY get the copyright? If that is the case then I think I would tell people to NOT hire a Canadian professional photographer for anything.

If I hire and pay a writer to write on my behalf, I expect that it is a work-for-hire arrangement and that I own the written work.

1098

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Attorney Larry Zerner & Vincent Tylor Extortion Letter

« on: November 10, 2012, 07:57:07 PM »

I think Tabberone.com is going to be a friend of ELI before too long. I like what they are doing.

I really like how they are using the terms "copyright extortionists" and "trademark extortionists". They also believe in getting smart and getting a spine. They think like we do.

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CeaseAndDesist/ceaseanddesist.shtml

Of course, the new term I coined during my visit with Robert is "copyright thugs". It appears others have used the term in reference to Perez Hilton. LOL.

Anyone want to take a stab of what a "copyright thug" might look like?  Maybe this character is dressed in black armed with a baseball bat ready to break someone's knees?

1099

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Attorney Larry Zerner & Vincent Tylor Extortion Letter

« on: November 05, 2012, 09:27:04 PM »

I think it is tremendously funny how Larry Zerner and Vincent Tylor's extortion letter is threatening using the $30K per infringement and $150K for willful infringement.

And yet Larry Zerner's own blog post tells people how to defend against it!

http://zernerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/you-infringed-my-copyright-you-owe-me-150000-um-not-so-fast/

Read Larry Zerner's own words.

But many people assume that I will jump at the chance to represent them on a contingency fee basis, because I will certainly be able to get a jury to award damages of $150,000 The problem is that they are not looking at the case realistically.  Reader, ask yourself this question. If you were on a jury and had to decide statutory damages on a case where the sole infringement was that a photograph was put up on a website, are you going to give that photographer $150,000.  Probably not.  Most likely, you will ask yourself how much damages the photographer actually incurred and base your award on that number.

Keep in mind, when Congress wrote the laws regarding statutory damages, they were probably thinking of things like video bootleggers, who could sell tens of thousands of dollars of illegal product, but with no record keeping of these sales, making actual damages impossible to determine.  They were almost certainly not considering the kind of (relatively) small infringements that happen daily on the web.  I’m not excusing this behavior.  Nor do I think these infringements should never draw a lawsuit (although sometimes they should not).  But just don’t assume that every infringement is automatically worth $150,000.

This is simply funny as get out!

Larry Zerner can now join the ranks of Timmy McCormack as the newest member of the MORON CLUB.

Larry, if you must attack with someone using propaganda, it might be a good idea to NOT argue the other side on your blog, you blooming moron.  LOL.

Larry must have a spinal cord injury because his left hand didn't know what the hell is right hand was saying.

Vincent, I see you are getting smarter in your hiring practices. Way to go in checking your hired help.

1100

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Attorney Larry Zerner & Vincent Tylor Extortion Letter

« on: November 05, 2012, 08:53:34 PM »

Following the settlement of Hawaiian Art Network & Vincent Tylor vs. Aloha Plastic Surgery, it appears that Vincent Tylor is going it alone for the moment in his extortion letters. This is the first time in a long while that we have seen Vincent Tylor move forward without the support of Hawaiian Art Network.

Vincent Tylor has hired California attorney Larry Zerner to issue a $5K extortion letter.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112260702/Attorney-Larry-Zerner-Vincent-Tylor-Settlement-Demand-Letter

As you can see, Tylor has authorized the old-style aggressive extortionate tactics threatening $30K/infringement and $150K for willful damages.

How many times has ELI seen this in the past?  Only the dumb and stupid would pay the $5K without getting a 2nd legal opinion.

1101

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network v. Aloha Plastic Surgery Lawsuit Settled

« on: November 05, 2012, 08:35:57 PM »

Based on limited information from what I could find out, I would say that Dr. Pasquale was pleased with the settlement. Without having details, it is difficult to say definitively what transpired. However, my instincts tells me that the case was sealed more to protect HAN and Vincent Tylor than Aloha Plastic Surgery given the fact that Aloha never had much of an issue with ELI repeatedly reporting on the case. In fact, I believe Aloha considered this fight a badge of honor.

Let's not forget that Aloha unexpectedly filed a countersuit which entangled both HAN and Vincent Tylor into a complaint from the very lawsuit they initiated. It put them into a defensive position strengthening the leverage Aloha had against HAN & Vincent Tylor. It is my suspicion that Aloha was in a better financial position to take on an extended legal battle than HAN (Glen Carner) and Vincent Tylor combined.

It is likely HAN & Vincent Tylor were uncomfortable with the discovery process that Aloha could have initiated.  Some uncomfortable questions would be asked and the answers would be equally uncomfortable to answer.

I have no doubt that the HAN lawsuit was meant to be a scare tactic against Aloha which backfired enormously against HAN and Vincent Tylor resulting in mounting legal fees on both sides.

From what little I know, Aloha was very determined in their fight to uncover HAN's and especially Vincent Tylor's extortionate tactics, seeding of the images, etc.

Sealing the settlement of this case protects HAN & Vincent Tylor more than Aloha as Dr. Pasquale never seemed to care about getting publicity on the case.  The potential loss, setback, and embarrassment for HAN & Vincent Tylor was very high given that the ruling of this case would have negatively rippled throughout the stock photo and photo industry. For Aloha Plastic Surgery, no one would hold it against them for falling victim for accidental and unintentional copyright infringement.

From my understanding, Dr. Pasquale cannot speak about the settlement unless he is compelled to through a future case subpoena.

As I have repeatedly said over the years, if the lawsuit road and the stock photo agency case was so compelling and overwhelming, why would they ever bother to settle?  The answer is because the lawsuit process would be a treacherous one. This has been shown repeatedly through prior cases by Masterfile, Corbis, and Getty.  HAN and Vincent Tylor elected to settle instead of "going all the way".

If their case was solid and their victory was so assured, why would HAN & Vincent Tylor settle at all?  While I cannot prove this, I absolutely believe the counter-suit initiated by Aloha was an unexpected and unhappy development for HAN & Vincent Tylor.

I believe Aloha could have weathered the legal battle financially even if they "lost".  Coupled with the fact the countersuit put HAN & Vincent Tylor in an unexpectedly defensive position.

All in all, I would consider this a victory of sorts for the Aloha.  HAN & Tylor chose to settle than to go "all the way".

1102

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Petition the U.S. government to change laws to end copyright trolling

« on: October 25, 2012, 09:17:52 PM »

Stinger,

We weren't putting down your idea.  It is just that the current implementations and executions we have seen were poorly done.  Nothing wrong with petitions. It is a great tool I would absolutely use in the right circumstances.  I am just not that enamored with the idea as it specifically relates to ELI's efforts.

1103

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Petition the U.S. government to change laws to end copyright trolling

« on: October 25, 2012, 03:20:37 PM »

I agree with Robert.  While well-intentioned, most of those petitions are poorly written, too narrow in scope, and don't take into consideration some of the larger issues/arguments for it to mean anything. Because of the way they are written, they also lack credibility.

This might sound a bit egotistical, but probably the only way I would actively and enthusiastically support any copyright trolling petition is one that I either wrote or was heavily involved in simply because I cannot throw my support over a petition that sounds either ridiculous, not credible, or offbase.

As far as I am concerned, fighting off the stock photo copyright extortionists is so simple now given the extensive research and reporting that has been done by ELI the last 4 years.

1104

Getty Images Letter Forum / ELI Defense Team Grows Again! Welcome Greg Troy, Newest ELI Team Member!

« on: October 24, 2012, 03:57:30 PM »

I wanted to make a special announcement.

On October 24, 2012, Greg Troy was formally invited by myself and Robert to become an ELI Defense Team Member. Oscar Michelen approved of our decision prior to the invitation. I am happy to say Greg accepted this voluntary position.  (He was simply overwhelmed by the tremendous compensation and benefits package offered to him. )

Greg has worked tirelessly and with great enthusiasm as a member of the ELI Community for nearly a year in the ELI cause supporting Oscar and myself as Lead Strategists and Spokesmen for the ELI cause.

Greg has made guest appearances on episodes of the ELI Factor.  We expect to continue seeing and hearing from him as he continues making valued contributions on both the ELI Forums and the ELI Factor.

On a personal note, I have gained another friend from the ELI experience.  I hope the ELI Community will continue to support and welcome his efforts and contributions.

The ELI Defense Team grows again and Oscar and I are grateful for the work the ELI Team members do for Oscar, myself, and the ELI Community.

Welcome aboard, Greg!

1105

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Troll Busters

« on: October 23, 2012, 11:48:23 PM »

Peeved,

Too funny!  Five on the team, eh?  You giving me a subtle suggestion? 

1106

Legal Controversies Forum / MOVED: Received letters from CEG

« on: October 23, 2012, 09:24:23 AM »

This topic has been moved to Getty Images Letter Forum.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php?topic=3274.0

1107

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How many have been sued for use of one pic?

« on: October 18, 2012, 11:08:29 PM »

As far as I know, NO ONE has been sued over one stinking low-resolution image.  Just because someone gets an extortion letter does NOT mean that is a lawsuit.  Once again, we appear to have the legally ignorant making statements that are incorrect.

Someone would have to PROVE it to me.  That means a legal complaint would have to be written, filed, paid for, AND served.  Absent all of these steps, there is no lawsuit.

Lisa is looking to be rolled over by sheer ignorance here. She needs to get it together and just hire Oscar.  She is nowhere qualified to advising anyone including the Chamber over this.

1108

Getty Images Letter Forum / Copyright Services International is back again

« on: October 18, 2012, 11:02:41 PM »

I was contacted by an emailed extortion letter recipient to get some of my insights. I had a lot to give, that is for sure.

Apparently, Copyright Services International is sending out "retroactive license" emails entirely bypassing the traditional hard-copy letterhead, envelope, and postage demanding a settlement.  It is stunning to me that anyone would engage Copyright Services International just because of an email. Nevertheless, it is happening.  And it seems to happen to the people who are the LEAST knowledgeable about legal protocol.

The latest "employee" of Copyright Services International signs her name:

Megan Rodgers
Account Director
Copyright Services International llc
340 S. Lemon Ave. #2204
Walnut, California 91789
United States
p 747.333.6615
f 866.842.4037

“This communication contains information that may be confidential or protected by copyright. Except for personal use by the intended recipient or as expressly authorized by the sender, any person who receives this information is prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing and/or using it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and all copies, and promptly notify the sender. Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an electronic signature under applicable law.”

The email address listed is:  <[email protected]>

Can we all try not to laugh too hard at the stupid legal disclaimer at the bottom?  LOL.  It looks like I have violated all kinds of rules by sharing this email signature and disclaimer.

The actual "extortion" letter is among the "gentlest" I have every seen. Nevertheless, it is ALWAYS about the money.  In all fairness, it doesn't legally threaten anyone and it doesn't claim a settlement.  It is about paying for a "retroactive license".

I want everyone to notice how this "transaction" will occur electronically through Paypal. An electronic invoice via Paypal will be sent. Presumably, payment is expected via Paypal.

Let me also say that the what Copyright Services International is asking is $250/image. That is probably the lowest "settlement offer" I have ever seen.  However, it is being masked by the term "retroactive license".

In all fairness, the $250 per image is in the realm of "reasonableness". It looks like Glen Carner has learned some valuable lessons here by taking a more "gentle", non-threatening approach using dollar amounts that are not in the stratosphere.

I am reaching out to you from Copyright Services International LLC on behalf of the photograghers Dennis Flaherty and Willard Clay.  As I mentioned on the phone, we have found a photo of Mr. Flaherty's on the XXXXXX section of XXXXXX that does not appear to have the proper licensing.   We have also found a photo of Mr. Clay's on XXXXXXX that does not appear to have the proper licensing.

The specific image for Mr. Flaherty that I am referring to is "DF-VA0001791662-AR0106" (#VA0001791662)" and is the seen on http:XXXXX

The specific image for Mr. Clay that I am referring to is "WC-1-750393536-50DC-135" (#VA0001810778)" and is the seen on http://XXXXXXX.  To help clarify, the image URL is : http://XXXXXXXX   

The photos looks great on the sites; however please understand that it is our responsibility to protect the rights of the photographers, and as such we are obligated to ensure they are compensated for their professional work. I'd like to emphasize that we would like to resolve this concern in an amicable fashion. Accordingly, we are offering an opportunity to retroactively license these images and provide release to XXXXXXX and its officers from all claims related to the above stated images.

Our standard fee for the retroactive licensing of these images as used on the above mentioned websites is $1255.  This represents the market value of these images that would be due if they had been licensed from the date of  first use, without any fees or penalty.

Simply removing the images will not provide release and only though retroactive licensing can release be given. The retroactive licensing agreement does not provide for future use, however we do offer future use licensing at fair market rates should you be interested.

In support of the validity of our concern, I have attached the registration and an affadvit from the photographer Dennis Flaherty as well as the registration from the photographer Willard Clay.

Please contact me as soon as possible to resolve this concern. We will provide an invoice (via Pay Pal) and signed release agreement for your documentation.

Sincerely,

Megan Rodgers
Account Director
Copyright Services International llc
340 S. Lemon Ave. #2204
Walnut, California  91789
United States
p 747.333.6615
f 866.842.4037

Once again, the "wallpaper trap" ensnares yet another victim.  This time around the wallpaper images were found in a Usenet group.  The misspelling of "personnal" is directly from Megan's email.  She needs a spell-checker.

Thank you for your quick response.   There are websites that legally allow free use of images as personnal computer wallpaper but not for commercial use. It is usually stated in the fine print somewhere on the website. While there would be no charge for personnal use, there would be if the image was used on a business website. Since this image was used on your business website, there is a license fee.
 
Again, I appreciate your swift investigation of this and I look forward to settling this matter amicably.

Other interesting quotes from the email chain sent to me are:

We sincerely appreciate your prompt removal of the images and for your desire to come to an amicable resolution.
 
As I have previously mentioned, we are here to protect the photographers' rights and by law a photographer does not have to have an identifying feature.  I can understand your frustration with this and I would like to invite you to look at our FAQ page which should help answer questions you might have or possibly will have.  The page is http://copyrightservicesinternational.com/did-csi-contact-you.htm .
 
I also understand that this is your hobby and it looks like you are providing a valuable service.  In the spirit of coming to a fair and amicable resolution, I can offer you a 20% discount, which would make your fee $1,004.  This can be paid in 3 - 5 equal monthly interest free installments.  Once final payment has been received, we will provide full release from any claims related to the past use of the image.
 

How convenient that the artists' email addresses won't be given out. No worries. The ELI Community can find their contact information through Google.

We can send you an invoice from Paypal and once your final payment has been received, we will send you a release agreement signed by each photographer.  It is an official document with their signatures naming you as having paid the retroactive license fee.  It does not prohibit you from purchasing future licensing of any artist's work.  Also please keep in mind that the $750 retroactive fee, once paid, frees you from previous use of these images, but does not allow for future use of said images.   
If you would like to write to the artists I can forward your email to each one, however, unfortunately I can not give out their email addresses.  I will also be sure to pass on to my supervisor what you told me about Usenet News Groups.
 
If you have any other questions, please let me know.  Again, this is our final offer to come to an amicable resolution.  The $750 fee can be paid in two equal monthlly installments, if that is easier for you. 

Lynne Hubsch still works for Copyright Services International presumably under Glen Carner.  She gets to be "the manager" that Megan runs to like a used car salesman that does a bogus run to get a "manager's approval".  Please note that they don't want the photographers involved. I am sure it can't be that difficult to find photographers Dennis Flaherty and Willard Clay on Google. Someone want to find their contact information and post it here since Megan, Lynne, and Glen won't voluntarily do it? 

I am happy that we are able to come to a resolution.  Sometime this afternoon you will be receiving an email from Lynne Hubsch with the copies of the releases.  This will come via PayPal and it should address your three requests.  Each copy of the release also states the terms of this contract.  This is a promise from my firm stating that we will provide you with full release once payment is received.  I have spoken with Lynne about setting up the payment schedule so that with each $250 you pay you will receive a retroactive license.  The retroactive license is sent via email and is valid.  I understand your concern and if you would still prefer, we can send you a notarized copy of each release.
 
I have spoken with my supervisor about you emailing the photographers.  He stated that photographers don't usually get involved with these matters, which is why we are hired.  We can pass along your apologies and your email address but please understand if they choose not to contact you.
 
Thank you.  Please let me know if there are any other questions.
 
Megan Rodgers

This piece of text was attached to the Paypal invoice sent by Copyright Services International LLC. 

Note from Copyright Services International LLC

Photographer warrants that they are the rightful copyright owner of image, and have not assigned any rights of ownership of the image indicated herein to anyone. Photographer understands and agrees that this release is not to be considered an admission of liability and/or fault by any party. This agreement merely reflects an amicable resolution of a claim. This release is not effective unless until payment constituting the entire license fee (line item above) is paid in accord with terms herein.
_____________________________ Photographer
____________________________ Date Signed

The Paypal email address is: [email protected] for anyone who wishes to send them some money.

Personally, I would tell Megan and Lynne to go pound sand knowing what I know about them and their operation.  It is ALWAYS about the money. In this case, $250 per image.

The latest Paypal invoice I've seen is numbered 32.  That means that 32 Paypal invoices have already been sent out before this finally surfaced onto ELI's radar. There is a good chance that many of those Paypal invoices resulted in some payment from people who weren't industrious enough to Google CSI and find ELI to get some informed help.

I have to give credit to Glen Carner and Copyright Services International for making this much progress so far using their "gentle" "retroactive license" approach using dollar amounts that are "reasonable" without using collection lawyers."

IN reading Megan's emails, I have to say she used a very civil, respectful, and non-threatening tone.  Kudos to her.

I hate to say it, but CSI might actually have a fighting chance of ongoing survival as they have taken away MOST of the arguments ELI has made about the whole extortion letter scheme minus the whole CEASE & DESIST NOTIFICATION thing and using the whole "wallpaper trap".  Good job, Glen, for making some progress.

But the whole "free wallpaper trap" still smells like a scam which sounds all too familiar with Vincent Tylor's "free wallpaper" websites.

1109

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alaska Stock - Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

« on: October 18, 2012, 09:51:37 PM »

No matter how I personally might feel, I don't want to ever make factual errors or make up fiction and call them "facts". I have no love for any of the stock photo companies but I definitely did not like making the statement that Alaska Stock went into bankruptcy when that definitely was not the case.  No one is more upset than me for my making an incorrect statement of fact.

Thanks for the continued support.

1110

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al

« on: October 17, 2012, 07:20:14 PM »

Serving papers can be anywhere from $50-$100.  It isn't that expensive in the big scheme of things.  However, serving a lawsuit does potentially open some unpleasant doors.  As HAN has learned the hard way and what I have said for some time, be careful in who you file a lawsuit on because they may turn the tables on you and slap a counter-lawsuit back where it becomes a legal tangled mess.