Show Posts
121
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: PDN Article Featuring "Kindly Uncle" Glen Carner
« on: December 29, 2012, 03:08:12 PM »
Thanks a lot Matt, it's good to be back!!
"Lettered" makes a good point.
There are several well-documented past actions taken by Mr Carner and those under his employ that raised a few eyebrows, to say the least.
The article doesn't touch on the fact that some of Mr Carner's art collections are offered for free on dozens of websites, and Mr Carner seems to have taken no action to rectify that.
Carner and his company hired a couple of lawyers in the recent past. While these people are not disbarred, they are clearly not in the business of “legal representation” any longer.
While I do not expect the author of the article to attack Mr Carner, the author missed a great opportunity to address some major concerns surrounding Carner and his operation.
---
Now, people make mistakes. If Mr Carner has "turned over a new leaf", then that's a good thing for sure.
However, I'm not convinced that much has changed at all.
Mr Carner and his companies no longer litigate on behalf of their clients.
But, according to the article, he receives 40 percent of any revenues gained through litigation. His name just won’t appear on the court docket as a plaintiff.
Mr Carner stated that he does not pursue bloggers any longer. In any case, there's probably not much money to be made in doing so.
There’s usually no way to track these bloggers down, and make them pay. Certified letters and lawsuits can’t really be sent to email addresses.
Carner may only demand the “list price” from alleged infringers. But that’s still a king’s ransom compared to what similar images can be purchased elsewhere for.
His business model really hasn’t changed much, only his communications strategy.
It’s actually rather clever that he no longer mentions “copyright infringement” in his communications to alleged infringers.
That conveniently bypasses questions about registration with the copyright office, and inquiries as to whom has the right to collect in legal terms.
I think that Carner might be alluding to Tylor’s exit from CSI in the article as follows:
"PDN: What criticism are you getting from photographers or other agencies about your position?
GC: We have had photographers who didn't want to work with us, in the retroactive licensing side of it, because they felt the recoveries were too minimal."
---
I “get” that Carner wants to treat alleged infringers as “customers”. But, infringers (alleged or otherwise) aren’t customers.
Those that infringe rarely go from using images for free, all the way to paying absolute top dollar.
In the past, I’ve actually acknowledged that companies have the right to ask for compensation for their products/services.
However, what people really want is cease and desist letters. Not letters that demand (politely) top-dollar prices, and the “customer” still gets sued if he/she doesn’t pay up.
S.G.
"Lettered" makes a good point.
There are several well-documented past actions taken by Mr Carner and those under his employ that raised a few eyebrows, to say the least.
The article doesn't touch on the fact that some of Mr Carner's art collections are offered for free on dozens of websites, and Mr Carner seems to have taken no action to rectify that.
Carner and his company hired a couple of lawyers in the recent past. While these people are not disbarred, they are clearly not in the business of “legal representation” any longer.
While I do not expect the author of the article to attack Mr Carner, the author missed a great opportunity to address some major concerns surrounding Carner and his operation.
---
Now, people make mistakes. If Mr Carner has "turned over a new leaf", then that's a good thing for sure.
However, I'm not convinced that much has changed at all.
Mr Carner and his companies no longer litigate on behalf of their clients.
But, according to the article, he receives 40 percent of any revenues gained through litigation. His name just won’t appear on the court docket as a plaintiff.
Mr Carner stated that he does not pursue bloggers any longer. In any case, there's probably not much money to be made in doing so.
There’s usually no way to track these bloggers down, and make them pay. Certified letters and lawsuits can’t really be sent to email addresses.
Carner may only demand the “list price” from alleged infringers. But that’s still a king’s ransom compared to what similar images can be purchased elsewhere for.
His business model really hasn’t changed much, only his communications strategy.
It’s actually rather clever that he no longer mentions “copyright infringement” in his communications to alleged infringers.
That conveniently bypasses questions about registration with the copyright office, and inquiries as to whom has the right to collect in legal terms.
I think that Carner might be alluding to Tylor’s exit from CSI in the article as follows:
"PDN: What criticism are you getting from photographers or other agencies about your position?
GC: We have had photographers who didn't want to work with us, in the retroactive licensing side of it, because they felt the recoveries were too minimal."
---
I “get” that Carner wants to treat alleged infringers as “customers”. But, infringers (alleged or otherwise) aren’t customers.
Those that infringe rarely go from using images for free, all the way to paying absolute top dollar.
In the past, I’ve actually acknowledged that companies have the right to ask for compensation for their products/services.
However, what people really want is cease and desist letters. Not letters that demand (politely) top-dollar prices, and the “customer” still gets sued if he/she doesn’t pay up.
S.G.