Messages

1321

Getty Images Letter Forum / Masterfile Settlement & Release Agreement

« on: June 12, 2012, 07:55:39 PM »

We got ahold of a Masterfile Settlement & Release Agreement never seen before on ELI. Have at it, go tear and analyze this thing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96875196/Masterfile-Settlement-Release-Agreement

1322

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Questions about my upcoming battle

« on: June 11, 2012, 03:53:03 PM »

Something doesn't sound right to me. What did you include in your domain name registration or your website?  I am not defending Getty but I can't see how they could "magically" find Getty without you providing some information.

I have followed this and this sounds very atypical.  Who actually did the contacting?  Was it Getty themselves, a collection agency, Collection lawyer, employee, or what?

I feel we are missing something here.

1323

Getty Images Letter Forum / April Brown Throws Getty Images Under the Bus in their own backyard!

« on: June 11, 2012, 03:49:16 PM »

This is actually quite funny. April Brown leads the fight against Linda Ellis and "Dash Poem Extortion Scheme".

(Go visit our new forum on the subject:  http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/linda-ellis-lindas-lyrics-dash-poem-letters-forum/)

April was on the radio interview this morning to discuss copyright trolling. She mentions me, Getty Images, Oscar, and his Defense Letter Program in Getty's backyard which is really funny and ironic.

It really has to be vexatious for the Getty crew.

1324

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Oscar Michelen Hits Back Against Conrad-Scherer Extortion Letter (HAN Lawyer)

« on: June 11, 2012, 03:36:00 PM »

It's not a "donation". It's a fee for a legal service.  Oscar might be offended if people refer to his fees for legal services as "donations".  :-)

Now I know why people need to just donate $200 to Oscar and get it over with. I wish I had known about Oscar in January.

1325

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty From Start To Finish

« on: June 10, 2012, 01:33:54 PM »

Scanning an image from a photographer's book? That is harder to defend given nearly everything in a book is copyrighted to begin with. How do you think the photographer will be ok with this? That requires way more effort and thought than right-clicking an image in an open Google Search.

If you get tired of ignoring it, you can hire Oscar Michelen to issue a Defense Letter on your behalf. Most photographer's have little power over Getty Images. It seems to me you have a LOT more education to go through in this matter. No one can do it for you in 1 or 2 posts.

1326

Getty Images Letter Forum / Special ELI Video Update: Matthew Chan Interviews April Brown (Poem Extortion)

« on: June 09, 2012, 11:13:38 AM »

A very special video update for ELI viewers and victims of the Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion Scheme. Matthew Chan interviews April Brown in this unique 1 hour video.



Comments are closed on the Getty forum. Please make comments and provide feedback here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/linda-ellis-lindas-lyrics-dash-poem-letters-forum/special-eli-video-update-matthew-chan-interviews-april-brown/

1327

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty From Start To Finish

« on: June 08, 2012, 09:42:59 PM »

He definitely got sucked in.  I paid zero because the $500 that was offered me was still way too much.  The price of ignorance and not having a spine is very high and a much lighter wallet.

Looks like you paid about 535.00 too much..this is what happens when people go in un-educated and make rash decisions..do you really think they wopuld have filed suit over 1 image?? they'd be losing money they walked thru the courthouse door. Oh well another win for Getty Images..more cash to buy stamps, paper and envelopes..

1328

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unplanned ELI Video Update: Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion

« on: June 07, 2012, 09:08:13 PM »

Everyone, I need to lock down this thread so no one adds anymore comments here. I am not trying to be a pain but there is an entire discussion forum on this now. It's pretty big.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/linda-ellis-lindas-lyrics-dash-poem-letters-forum/

This is similar to the whole George Riddick/Imageline extortion thing in that one poem author is behind this viral poem providing an endless supply of extortion letters for Linda's Lyrics aks Linda Ellis.

I don't want the Poem Extortion mixed up with the Stock Photos Extortion discussion.  It is similar in some ways but involve entirely different people and mindset.

If we keep the discussions on that forum, it will help the SEO.  With Glen Carner, HAN, Getty, Masterfile, etc. here, we have our hands full.

You guys can pick up the thread here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/linda-ellis-lindas-lyrics-dash-poem-letters-forum/dash-for-cash-videos-on-the-linda-ellis-dash-poem-extortion-scheme/

1329

Getty Images Letter Forum / Unplanned ELI Video Update: Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion

« on: June 07, 2012, 06:44:01 PM »

This is an unplanned ELI Video Update recorded this morning.

ELI is under attack by a different type of extortionist: a poem extortionist.  The ELI Scribd account was faced with another DMCA complaint because we posted a new extortion letter.  We expect there will be more complaints and actions made against ELI in the near future. We were warned of this.

Within 24 hours of posting, a complaint was filed. It was the fastest complaint of all time.  Needless to say, ELI is fighting it and going to punch back hard. I hate time-suck activity and punching back is the only message extortionists understand.



A brand-new discussion forum has been set up to cover this and fight back this new copyright troll. Go check it out.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/linda-ellis-lindas-lyrics-dash-poem-letters-forum/

BuddhaPi and I could use some extra help in finding new information, thoughts, and commentary on this new extortion scheme.  Thanks.

1330

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:56:56 PM »

Jerry (mcfilms) advocates for your ability to speak out here. It is only because of my respect for him that I am extending your free ride to June 30. I fully expect that you will be too cheap to pay for the marketing & PR activities you are engaging in.  It is a bit interesting but you still happily extract extortionate amounts from the letter recipients to this day.

Regarding the "one strike" issue. I don't recall any letter recipient being let off with a warning.  Someone running a stop sign or speeding would have a better chance getting off with a warning from a police officer than from extortionists in the stock photo industry.  Even when they don't pursue a letter recipient, they don't have the decency to say "We will let this one go. Don't do it again."  They will let them stress for the entire 3 years on the statute of limitations.

Many lawyers constantly brag about how smart they are and they have no hesitation to make legal threats they can't keep.  Well, I told you already. I don't like to bluff. We will continue reporting as long as letter recipients keep sending in letters. That is no bluff.  Simple as that.

If they don't want to be reported, then maybe they shouldn't piss and upset people so much they feel the need to get help.

I'm not really sure what to say here.  I will continue to communicate with McFilms if he has questions or comments like we have in the past.  I appreciate the time you have given me and even though it has been brutal, I knew what to expect when I came here.  In general, all of you were courteous and tolerant of hearing the "other sides" views.  I am glad to see some of the questions and concerns about my company's spoken to, and regret not clarifying those points earlier.

Please consider this one thing if I am not able to post here any more. 

The "ELI Attorney Warning System."  What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI.  It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate.   Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them?  They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.

Thank you.

1331

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:45:52 PM »

Jerry (mcfilms) has convinced me to slow this down a bit. I have elected to slow it down to June 30 to give enough time for Glen to engage ELI and vice-versa. That is more than enough time to get what everyone needs to be said out there. I cannot foresee going past this date but Jerry and I will be in touch to revisit this in the weeks to come.

My vote goes with McFilms to some degree, sorry Matt. I understand in some ways Glen is like a spammer (advertiser) but if not too excessive seems ok. Also people here have asked him these questions. Well its your forum and he has the gold rules.

1332

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:41:28 PM »

Just so everyone knows, mcfilms (Jerry) and I had a long talk about this.  I made my case and shared a lot of things he may not have been aware for.  He made his case favoring free speech and I understand his sentiments except that ELI isn't "public property".

At the end of the day ELI is private property (mine) and a private forum that I do my best to open up to most people. But Glen is here to advance his PR cause (HAN & CSI) using the private platform.  We engage in a lot of "marketing" efforts here to expand the ELI reach. I do most of the heavy-lifting in that department.  If Glen wants to start his own forum at CSI or HAN website, he can and he can post his message to his heart's content.  If people want to engage him on his website or private email, I can't stop him.

I put too much of my time and energy into ELI for some "outsider" to come in and to pedal his propaganda however well intentioned it might be.  These forums are primarily for letter recipients NOT the letter extortionists.  ELI is a huge platform and he knows it. That is why he is here.  Otherwise, he could have started his own blog and forum and talk to his community (and still can).  He knows we have the readership and this is where it matters. Why should he get a free ride when his letter victims have to pay?  That make no sense to me.

I don't think Glen is fundamentally evil but his goals are incongruent with ELI which focuses on reporting and defending against the stock photo industry and similar extortionists.  If he cares enough to be here, he will make an ELI contribution. If not, he is all talk which is just fine.  But that simply means he wants to resume fleecing extortion letter recipients. Talk is cheap.

ELI requires financial support.  Oscar pays, BuddhaPi pays, and I pay to keep ELI running. Why should Glen NOT pay when he represents his own business and stands to gain from pedaling his propaganda on ELI.  Plenty of forums to post on, why here?

I told Jerry I did not want to lose him as an ELI Defense Team member.  The position admittedly has crappy pay and benefits. No doubt about it. I understood if Jerry would ultimately want to remove his association with ELI but I would rather he didn't.

I promised Jerry I would give this more time until the end of the month and Glen can continue communicating what he needs or wants to for now.  That is more than enough time for Glen to get the feedback he needs from everyone and impart whatever message he wants from the ELI community.

That is where I am currently at with this. I have done this out of my high respect for Jerry to not be too impulsive. But I do not see myself allowing Glen to be here past June 30. For me, it is irrelevant if he his here or not. We will continue the mission as we have been.

At some point, I will probably do a video to better elaborate my thoughts. I trust Jerry will chime in soon now that he has spoken with me.

Matthew,

The only thing I feel more passionately about than extortion is free speech. I've always said, your forum, your rules. But if you decide anyone is required to pay money to participate on these forums, I will have to resign as a ELI team member. I was the one that initially emailed and asked Glen to join these forums. We were all quite surprised when he showed up. Now, suddenly he is a huge burden? Frankly I don't get it, but I suspect my goals and those of this forum have somehow diverged.

1333

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:09:52 PM »

No problem. I was good all along. I was just confused at what you and SG were referring to my name about. I had no ill will or disagreements with either of you or your replies (for now. LOL.)

My position is pretty much exactly the same as yours. 

I posted because I don't want anyone to misunderstand my defending my decision to answer Glen and somehow implying you or anyone else must do the same.    I may be mistaken but I sense some others (not you) may have gotten the impression I think others must do as I do-- and I don't think that. Sorry if this wasn't clear.

1334

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:43:11 PM »

Be nice, SG. Lucia is a "regular" contributor. We don't all have to agree 100% of the time.

I sincerely hope that he takes Lucia with him.

1335

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:15:34 PM »

I am a bit lost to why my name is brought up. I don't think I disparaged you or anyone for answering Glen. That is your choice.  I simply stated I didn't want to spend time trying to solve HIS industry problems.  And you are right, your actions don't dictate mine. It's your time and effort, not mine.

I don't think I have tried to squelch anyone's opinion regarding Glen. Somehow you have me confused with something.

In any case, Glen's time might soon be over. His free ride is over.  Glen has been put on notice that he will have to literally pay an ELI monthly contribution to hang out here. Why should he get free benefits when we have extortion letter recipients having to pay ELI Phone Support calls, ELI voluntary contributions, and ELI Defense Letters?  All of which to directly or indirectly support the continued existence of the ELI website and the ELI Forums. He is taking our collective knowledge only to use it to extract more monies for his business. 

If I thought anyone was crossing the line or doing something I didn't like, I would be more explicit about it. Somehow during some communications or off-hand comment, you or SG might have read more my into my comments it was intended.

Matt-
I have no objection to your not spending time replying. I don't think my choices dictate yours.  On the other hand: This is your forum so if you told me to go away, I would.

However, for now, if  people ask my opinion, I plan to give my opinions. That will include giving informative answers to Glen's questions and also will include giving informative answers to letter recipient victims when I can.  In my opinion, both types of conversation can benefit those on the receiving end of letters.

I realize that my choices seem to bother SG-- I've explained my reasons to him.  I don't want my explanations to SG to give anyone the impression that my decision to spend my time engaging Glen in anyway suggests that I think you or anyone else has any obligation to volunteer your time.  You have no such obligation either ethically, morally, socially or in any other way.

It is certainly true that Glen's business enterprise and his choices are his and absolutely no one is required to donate their time or expertise to assist hm.  But by the same token, I hope that doesn't mean that people are not permitted to answer-- and sometimes if he asks questions, I will be answering. (Well, unless you decide to forbid it. But I have not developed the sense that it is forbidden.)