I am going to do a few each login.
#1 - Correct, I am the sole member of both companies.
#2 - Hawaiian Art Network llc sells and licenses fine art and stock photography for Hawaii based artists. The company was founded for the purpose of supporting and representing local artists which we have done since 2004. Copyright Services International llc performs copyright related services on behalf of photographers, authors, and agencies including copyright registrations, content tracking (we use both automated and human powered systems), data gathering, internal account collections, and DMCA Takedowns.
#3 - Hawaiian Art Network is just that, a network. Our residential fine art sales are fullfilled by the artists themselves exept for commercial projects. Each artist plays a roll in service towards the customer. We also have a bookkeeper, a call / order center, and like you had mentioned previously are "virtual" in nature. Copyright Services International has a dedicated registration specialist, account director, two researchers, and two tracking specialists.
#4 - There are many reasons to be on the ELI forums at this time:
- First and formost, I want CSI to develop new solutions for collecting revenue retroactvily that dosent require copyright law. Is the threat of copyright penalties and accusations of "stealing" the only way to deal with these matters? I hope not. The USCO is also trying to address this issue http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html. I don't know of anyone in the stock photo industry including myself who entered into this business looking foward to the day when pursuing copyright infringements would become standard practice. Its uncomfortable, inefficient, and contentious work.
- The issues are not black and white and the majority of users on ELI speak with one voice. Either that or those of us listening in have "one ear."
- I hope to dispell the myths about my companies which have been created at ELI.
- I can give accurate information and have no entrenched position on copyright law or the industry.
- I know the answers to questions like "Why are the ceast and desist letter amounts this much?" "Who dictates what's in those letters anyway?" "How can this be stealing?" and "I found this image on Google so it must be 'fair use' right?" I make no judgment on any of these things but will provide the facts as I understand them.
#5 - I dident know Getty was being more "cautious." Are you sure this is the case? I dont assume to know what Getty thinks but these decisions (like any case) are based on it being worthwhile to the company and the principals of the matter. I dont know if HAN filing on cases "works" or what "works" means but we have every intention of following up with companies that are using our photographer's images for profit. Each company was offered the opportunity to resolve the matter prior to any court filing. What should our response be when we try and resolve a matter in a way which the law outlines and our effort gets ignored or thrown back at us? At HAN, we take our attorney's advice which may mean filing a complaint.
#6 - Im not sure how ELI feels about willful infringement but the law as stated in Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc., et al., 271 F.Supp.2d 737 (D. Md., July 10, 2003): “[W]illfulness” means that the infringer either had actual knowledge that it was infringing the owner's copyrights or acted in reckless disregard of those rights." Readers should also know that under the law "willfulness" as a concept appears to lean more towards "you should have known better and ignorance is not bliss" then one might commonly assume as it pertains to copyright.
What you or I think is fair is not necessarily what the law states or how it operates. Concepts like "deserve" and "I think" don't enter into it when dealing with IP attorneys because they operate in a totally different framework. Take C & D letters for example and why they are written the way they are. The attorneys are not manufacturing those points and amounts, they are following the template of the law. This is why you see "new" lawyers indicating higher amounts and damages. They are trained to do what the law stipulates and what is best for their client. That appears to be to pull and fight as hard as they can, with the expectation that the other side will do the same, best we die bloody and battered in the middle of the courtroom where the truth be found along with the adulation our clients. Really? That's the only way human beings have come up with to deal with the unlicensed use of a stock photograph? As long as the use of images without license is seen as a civil or criminal issue, it will be handled in a way that is consistent with the law. Ironically, it's the more seasoned attorneys who drift away from the "letter" of the law.
Do I agree with the law? There must be some responsibility on the part of a business who uses other peoples work especially when the use is for profit. Where that line is drawn is a matter for the courts to determine (as long as the only solution remains a legal one).
#7 - Market value of our rights-managed images is provided by FotoQuote software (which nationally samples prices), the photographers themselves, and an evaluation of other agencies.
#8/9 - Unfortunately I cant comment on this. Sorry.
#10 - See #4. I was disheartened to see that CSI's attempts at trying internal collections that moved away from formal notices, legal citations, penalty fees, and attorney involvement with the potential of follow-up action were met with suspicion on ELI. Our account director has been specifically trained to try and avoid words like "copyright" "infringer" "stealing" theft" or other accusatory language because it is so hostile and unproductive. Nothing would please me more then for CSI to be successful with our new approach at least at first contact. ELI be proud, it was previous comments you made about acceptable practice that inspired this.
HAN like ELI is made up of people too. As are the attorneys we hire, the people using the images, the photographers, etc. Each of us is trying to do the best we can to feed our families and keep the world from falling apart around us. We follow the law which in the case of copyright is very inflammatory. So inflammatory that even companies that CSI contacts with an attempt at a business to business resolution with zero penalties, no mention of attorneys, accusations of theft, and discounted license fees sometimes respond through law firms because they are so distressed when discussing copyright. Both sides continue to do this and I don't see anyone saying "here is another way that is supported by both the industry and people using the images" to resolve this quickly, reasonably, and efficiently. It may not even feel fair to both parties but for smaller claims especially, any alternative should be considered and tried. That's why I am here.
See you around the forums.
Show Posts